Nasa has named the crew of its next Artemis mission, which it promised would be an “extraordinary demonstration of what is possible”. Artemis is the ambitious American-led effort to return humans to the lunar surface by 2028.

However, the Artemis III mission will not travel to the Moon. Instead, the Orion spacecraft will stay in low Earth orbit and aim to dock with lunar landing vehicles launched separately by one or two space companies.

Nasa astronauts Randy Bresnik, Frank Rubio and Andre Douglas and Italian European Space Agency astronaut Luca Parmitano will carry out the mission in late 2027.

There are two potential landers that could fly on their separate mission to then rendezvous with the Orion spacecraft; one made by Elon Musk’s SpaceX and the other by Jeff Bezos’ firm Blue Origin. They will carry astronauts down to the Moon’s surface on subsequent missions.

However, the timetable for Artemis III and the first mission to return astronauts to the lunar surface (Artemis IV) has been thrown into doubt by the recent explosion of a New Glenn rocket. This rocket is intended to launch Blue Origin’s lander, called Blue Moon.

The blast could add significant delay to the Artemis schedule and there is speculation that it could even put the US out of contention to reach the Moon before China, which is planning its own Moon landing mission for 2030.

On May 28, 2026, Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket, which is able to carry heavy payloads, was undergoing a standard engine fire test. For reasons which are still unclear, a huge explosion destroyed the rocket and damaged Blue Origin’s only launchpad, located at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.

To reduce costs, Nasa’s Artemis programme relies on companies like Blue Origin to deliver key elements for lunar missions, like the landers.

Rockets capable of lifting heavy payloads into orbit will be needed for launching the building blocks of Nasa’s Moon base, which will be assembled over the next few years.

Under previous plans, SpaceX’s Starship vehicle would have been used as the lander for the first two Artemis missions to touch down on the Moon. However, Starship ran into problems during flight tests, so Nasa hatched a plan B.

This backup plan brought Blue Origin’s Blue Moon lander into the mix for Artemis IV, the first mission back to the lunar surface. Now, with the explosion, even their Plan B seems to have moved out of reach.

How bad is the situation though? Blue Origin only has one launch pad that, at the moment, cannot be used. But recent updates by the company’s CEO, Dave Limp, indicated that the situation may not be as dire as it might have been. He indicated that New Glenn might even return to launch before the end of the year.

The propellant farm (which stores the rocket fuel and oxidiser that are pumped into the rocket just before launch), as well as the water tower were undamaged. So were the booster and upper stages of another New Glenn rocket held in the pad’s integration facility. The launch tower will only need to be repaired and not rebuilt.

To gain some insight into the potential impact on the timescale for a next launch, we might be able to look at a similar situation faced by SpaceX in September 2016 where a Falcon 9 rocket exploded on one of their launchpads.

They were able to continue only four months after, but from one of their alternative launch sites, none of which were fully operational at that time. But Blue Origin has no alternative site at all. SpaceX needed more than a year to start up operations again on their damaged launch site.

Kiko Dontcev, vice president of launch at SpaceX, commented on the task ahead for Blue Origin. He described the rebuild as a high precision dissection of the damaged site to help better understand the incident. “In the initial days and weeks after you’re using a scalpel not a bulldozer,” he commented on X.

This might cast doubt on hopes that New Glenn could launch again this year. Indeed, Nasa’s chief Jared Isaacman told CNBC that the launch pad might not be restored until 2028. Currently, we just do not have the full picture of the damage and work needed. So, we can only hope that New Glenn launches can resume as soon as possible.

Nasa is already trying to limit the impact of the New Glenn explosion by urging Blue Origin to look at other rockets for launching its Blue Moon lunar landers. This would allow Nasa to still meet its deadline of landing astronauts on the Moon in 2028.

But New Glenn is still needed to land hardware such as the lunar terrain vehicles for Artemis missions and a robot rover called Viper, which will scout for water ice at the Moon’s south pole.

Exploring with pride

However, with 2030 approaching fast, the knock-on effects of the explosion could lead to China beating the US to the Moon. But the Artemis programme had already been hit by delays as a result of Nasa’s dependence on government whims and variable funding. Overall, the Artemis programme has had a relatively tight budget to work with.

Space agencies like Nasa must try (as much as possible) to decouple their efforts in space from ongoing turmoil in domestic politics. It could also do well to rely less on ventures led by billionaires, who often have their own private objectives.

One could view the Chinese lunar programme as being more stable, because of their one-party state as well as their strong sense of national pride. However, there is also a lack of transparency in their space programme and a focus on propaganda.

As an outside observer, it appears that Nasa’s current timeline for landing on the Moon and establishing a permanent lunar base is slipping away. But this may not be the disaster some in the space industry think it is. Perhaps we should embrace a pride in exploring space as a community of nations working together.

Daniel Brown does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

When I talk to my son, an engineering student, and we have a question or disagreement, he immediately turns to ChatGPT as his primary source of information and confirmation.

He is not alone in this. The use of generative AI tools has exploded across different demographic groups. For many people, these tools can be entertaining, informative and beneficial. However, they also have a dark side.

Generative AI is not formally recognised as addictive right now – the medical evidence is still being gathered. But there is a significant amount of data showing heavy use of chatbots and other systems that produce text, images and video leads to neural patterns and behaviour that are associated with addiction.

In light of Meta’s and YouTube’s recent legal defeat in a landmark social media addiction trial, I believe it’s time to ask whether a similar logic applies to generative AI – and how it could be addressed. The starting point would be to identify who carries responsibility for overuse of generative AI.

The science on this is not settled, and there are some who counsel caution when using the term addiction. They propose the use of other expressions such as “problematic use”. However, in a recent paper, our team of researchers suggest there is strong evidence to suggest that generative AI has addictive properties.

Much-discussed examples include emotional dependency on chatbot companions, compulsive engagement with them, and the loss of real-world acquaintances and friends.

A key factor here is that, as in all cases of addiction, the behaviour has negative consequences for the user which may affect both their personal and professional lives.

If we follow the argument that generative AI is a candidate for addictive behaviour, then we also need to look at responsibility. Societies tend to find ways to deal with harm by holding people or groups responsible for fixing it. Those who could be accountable include legislators, regulators, industry and health systems.

Historical examples

Historical precedents such as smoking might offer insights into how the area of generative AI addiction could evolve.

Older readers may remember when the Marlboro Man would appear before any feature movie in their local cinemas. It eventually transpired that not only was smoking addictive and bad for your health, but that tobacco companies knew this. Nevertheless, it was publicly denied.

This led to lengthy and high-profile litigation, eventually resulting in large-scale financial payouts and changes to the industry. These changes included the plain packaging of tobacco products and gruesome warning labels on them.

Gambling could be following a similar trajectory – and now social media companies may be taking their first steps into a similar process.

A key question is whether the makers of a product – be it tobacco, gambling or social media – are aware of its addictive properties. Another important factor being considered is whether certain companies may even use the allegedly addictive properties of their products for corporate advantage.

AI is not tobacco, of course, but there may be parallels to be studied.

In our research, we have identified four groups of stakeholders that are now being called upon to address the challenges linked to the possibility of addiction to generative AI.

The first is governments and regulators. These have a key role to play in highlighting the problems, setting the rules of engagement, and creating incentives for other parties to engage with the topic.

They can do this by requiring labelling, restricting advertising, applying liability law and providing research funding – along with many other mechanisms.

But the most important role in addressing potential addictive behaviour associated with generative AI would be held by big tech companies that develop and own these technologies – and stand to benefit financially from them.

These companies own and have access to user data, which would be needed to ascertain the features that support or alleviate addiction. They are also the parties that would benefit financially from addiction by increasing user numbers and engagement, the main currency of the digital age.

In addition to these two groups, academic researchers have an important role in collecting and interpreting data, and providing the evidence needed to recognise addiction and addictive features – in ways that allow for evidence-based political or legal debate.

Finally, civil society organisations such as user or patient groups can help by providing support, advocating for members’ interests, and establishing early-warning structures.

The point is that none of these interested parties can address the problem on their own. They need to collaborate.

Someone else’s problem

A key problem at the moment is the lack of structured debate about responsibilities – everybody assumes it is someone else’s problem. But there is ample precedent showing how greater engagement from those involved with the issue may be achieved.

With tobacco, the World Health Organization (WHO) formed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control – a treaty-based mechanism that brought together governments, public health bodies, researchers and civil society to evaluate evidence and draw up common rules. The International AI Safety Report shows comparable international consensus-building activities are already happening in other aspects of AI.

Some responsibility also falls on the users of AI, who should try to avoid or control their own potentially harmful behaviour. But appeals to individual moderation or mindfulness have been shown with other addictions to be insufficient.

While the harms associated with smoking or alcohol misuse are well known, society still relies on age limits, packaging rules and advertising restrictions. Generative AI is being integrated into the everyday fabric of our society. The choices we now make will determine what acceptable use looks like for years to come.

Bernd Stahl does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

From the air, you see it only through the constant jolt, tilt and shudder of the low-flying Cessna aircraft. The landscape of the Llanos de Moxos, northern Bolivia, appears as a disconnected patchwork of open grassland savannahs, forest islands and lakes.

It feels random, almost unreadable. Only gradually does the pattern resolve itself: raised causeways or paths fanning out to link the forest islands, and a dense, scattered web of canals threading the terrain. Slowly you realise it’s a structured network of intersecting lines, enclosures and roads – the imprint of past human design.

If you stand on the open savannah, there is almost nothing to see of this ancient network. The horizon feels open, with fires in the distance from local people burning pastures and clearing forest as dry season begins. The old geometry is still faintly perceptible, but you have to know how to look.

Step into the patches of forest and the canopy closes in. The earth softens underfoot and mosquitoes descend in relentless swarms. The sweat on your neck thickens into a humid film, carrying the familiar scent of suncream and the sharper, chemical note of DEET.

In the uneven light between the trees, the landscape dissolves into subtle rises and depressions. Against the rhythmic swish of machetes as our guides cut through the vegetation, your mind tries to piece together the fragments of structures into something coherent. Flying overhead doesn’t reveal anything about this forest area in the way that it does with the savannah. But fortunately recent advances in technology have transformed what we are able to see.

Archaeological explorations in this part of the world have been completely changed by lidar in the past couple of decades. Lidar maps an area from a plane or drone by bouncing rapid laser pulses off the Earth’s surface. Some of these pulses penetrate the forest canopy, reach the ground and reflect back to the sensor.

By measuring the return time, the system can generate highly precise three-dimensional models of the terrain. This allows you to strip away the camouflage of vegetation, making it possible to see what lies below the Amazonian forest for the first time.

It reveals the ancient Llanos de Moxos as not simply a collection of settlements, but an entire urbanised landscape. A large part in the south-east of this region belonged to the Casarabe culture, which dominated between around AD500 and 1400. It extends across 20,000km², which is roughly the size of New Jersey in the US.

The Casarabe organised into a hierarchy of four different sizes of settlements (those forest islands mentioned above). The biggest ones – the primary settlements – were as large as 3km² or 300 hectares. That’s enough space for over 400 football pitches, suggesting that they could have accommodated substantial numbers of people.

---

Welcome to our series on the great mysteries of archaeology. Viking explorers, Amazonian cities, artefacts from before civilisation. Archaeology may be all about the past, but it’s constantly shifting with every scientific discovery. This series will dig into some of the most fascinating debates in the field today.

---

These settlements connect along the raised causeways to smaller secondary and tertiary sites a number of kilometres away, all of which were permanently inhabited as opposed to empty ceremonial hubs. A fourth tier consists of groups of isolated mounds located out in the pampas, which likely correspond to dwelling areas occupied by farmers who would have worked the fields.

It’s not possible to show a lidar image of these four different types of sites interconnecting because they are too far apart for the resolution available, but the image below of a primary settlement known as Loma Cotoca shows the kinds of things we are now documenting.

It features some very impressive civic-ceremonial architecture: conical pyramids over 20 metres tall and U-shaped structures that may have acted as areas for public gatherings for speeches or ceremonies. These were built on top of man-made platforms rising as much as five metres off the ground and extending over 20 hectares. To be clear, this is all still hiding under the forest, but the lidar data reveals the shape, height and layout of what lies below.

The volume of earth moved to create this architecture would have rivalled – and in some cases exceeded – that of well known Andean monuments such as Akapana a few hundred miles to the south-west on the other side of the Andes. Akapana was the epicentre of the Tiwanaku empire that dominated the southern Andes between about AD600 and 1000.

Yet where monuments like Akapana were surrounded by classic, compact bounded cities with thousands of inhabitants, the Casarabe equivalent was completely different. This was dispersed, low-density living amid extensive green space – a form of tropical urbanism that challenges longstanding assumptions about this area as sparsely populated and only lightly modified. It invites comparison with other low-density tropical urban landscapes such as the Maya in central America and the Angkor in latter day Cambodia.

Equally important is the coherence of the Casarabe system. The settlements are rarely isolated, part of a tightly connected network with shared water-management systems. It was clearly all planned and coordinated, designed not only as living spaces but for integrating the population across the region.

We can see that the Casarabe were sustained by drained-field agriculture: the canals were dug to make the land viable for planting during the wet season. The most prominent crop was maize, but there was a remarkable diversity of other produce. This was all embedded within a landscape that was engineered through reservoirs and farm ponds, which helped the Casarabe sustain cultivation and maintain access to water through the dry season in this extremely seasonal environment.

Also very noticeable is the fact that all the major architectural features and burial sites are oriented north-north-west. This suggests these people may have been led by cosmology, with important celestial bodies or regions of the night sky serving as symbolic reference points – hinting at a world where infrastructure, settlement and belief were inseparable.

Rethinking the Amazon

The Casarabe culture covered much less than 1% of Amazonia, which is the whole tropical interior of South America, spanning close to half of the entire continent. For much of the 20th century, this vast area was viewed by archaeologists as an environment that was limiting for human existence.

Poor soils, scarce game, extreme El Niño floods and droughts, and the challenges of tropical disease were all thought to constrain human populations to small, wandering groups living off the land as best they could. Large, settled societies – let alone towns or cities – were considered unlikely, if not impossible.

This view began to shift in the late 20th century for several reasons. Archaeologists realised that Amazonian people had been domesticating a diversity of plants since the end of the Ice Age. They manufactured some of the earliest ceramics in the Americas, and also devised soils known as Amazonian Dark Earths, which combined charcoal, bone and waste materials with the existing poor-quality soil to make it fertile enough for widespread farming.

It also became apparent that just like the Casarabe people, many other cultures across Amazonia had reclaimed vast expanses of seasonally flooded savannahs over several thousand years to create raised and drained field systems.

These discoveries were evidence of long-term settlement and landscape management far beyond what was previously thought possible. It meant Amazonia was not simply a backdrop to human activity; much of the landscape was shaped over the last 13 millennia by the people who lived there.

Enter lidar

Like lasers in the sky, lidar technology has accelerated this transformation in our understanding. The digital process feels near-magical, a “vegetation removal algorithm” that reveals the secrets below.

In practice, however, working with lidar in Amazonia is anything but straightforward. Running such a project here, as I have done, can feel like one of the greatest emotional rollercoasters in field archaeology. It’s all anticipation, frustration and sudden revelation – only comparable, perhaps, with shipwreck exploration.

Depending on what technology is available and most suitable for exploring a particular area, I’ve worked with lidar attached to drones, aeroplanes and helicopters. I’ve learned through trial and error that the technology is only as effective as the logistics and personalities behind it – above all on one occasion when we were trying to integrate a Hungarian lidar sensor with a Brazilian drone.

Lidar can perform beautifully one day and fail the next, depending on the equipment, weather, terrain, batteries, communications and the sheer difficulty of operating in remote Amazonian conditions.

Flights must be carefully planned in remote areas with limited infrastructure, where convective clouds, smoke from fires, wind and even vultures riding thermals can disrupt data acquisition. You have to arrange fuel in advance and improvise landings wherever a safe clearing can be found. Here’s our team refuelling a lidar helicopter in the football field of a small village in Acre state, western Brazil:

You also have to do constant troubleshooting with the technology, such as making sure it’s calibrated correctly and that the data from different flight paths all aligns. What appears in the final images as a seamless “removal” of the forest is, in reality, the product of improvisation, negotiation and persistence.

But given all these challenges, it makes the first successful images all the more powerful when they finally appear. The reward is that we’re finally finding the “lost civilisation” that explorers like Percy Fawcett were searching for a century ago, but by cajoling a drone rather than battering through jungle.

Incidentally, this technology also has important uses beyond archaeology. It can help people to locate and harvest crops like rubber or açaí palm fruits without having to clear so much rainforest. It is also used by pioneering projects such as Amazonia Revelada, which helps Indigenous and traditional people of the Amazon to prove their historic presence within an area to ward off modern commercial interests like loggers or farmers, while also protecting the living history and nature embedded in these landscapes.

Other lidar discoveries

Lidar surveys by French and Ecuadorian archaeologists have revealed that the Llanos de Moxos was certainly not the only example of large-scale, highly integrated society in Amazonia. The Upano Valley, which covers some 300-600km² on the mountainous forest of the Ecuadorian eastern flanks of the Andes, offers another striking example – this time from between about 500BC and AD600–700.

Lidar discovery areas

In Upano, archaeologists have been able to map a vast network of settlements connected by extensive road systems, with large platforms and clusters of buildings arranged in organised layouts across a broad area.

What stands out is not just the scale – thousands of structures – but the rigour of the planning. The settlements didn’t just grow randomly, but as part of a deliberate design: we see straight lines of flat-topped platforms laid out in repeating rows and connected by straight paths that cut cleanly across the landscape, as you can see below.

Again, this is not urbanism in the conventional sense of dense, continuous occupation. There would have been none of the vertical stacking of buildings that you’d get in European settlements, and there were also green spaces between platform complexes – much more like a forest city.

Like the Casarabe region, this is a distributed settlement pattern that is both open and highly structured, but the arrangement is much more compact. This reflects the limited flat space available on the upper terraces of the Upano River, which rise up to 100 metres above the surrounding landscape.

Elsewhere in Amazonia, we see more variations. In the Upper Xingu of central Brazil, interconnected settlements were arranged around a shared ceremonial and road network, again suggesting a regionally coordinated social world.

Further north, the Tairona people of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta in present-day Colombia built terraced stone towns in the mountains, linked by paved paths. This was a form of urbanism shaped entirely by the demands of steep, high-altitude terrain. Below is a lidar image of one area in this region, with the platforms that would have housed the settlements marked in yellow. Below that, you can see what the platforms look like.

In western Amazonia, Acre adds another important variation. From around AD1–1000, people built large ditched enclosures, or geoglyphs, mainly in the south-eastern part of this region along the upper Purus River. These were square, circular, hexagonal or octagonal mounds, often 1-3 hectares in size, with ditches up to four metres deep. These were probably used as ceremonial gathering places rather than permanent settlements.

After about AD1000, these were followed by what we call circular mound villages, occupied until around AD 1650–1700. They featured rings of mounds around central plazas and straight roads radiating out like the rays of the Sun, often built to align with the four main compass points. These “Sun villages” were true settlements, and formed interconnected networks across the southern rim of Amazonia. You can see an example in the lidar image below.

Taken together, these discoveries fundamentally reshape our understanding of Amazonia. We now see a mosaic of managed landscapes, engineered environments and, in some cases, city-scale societies. What unites them is not a shared blueprint but a shared impulse: the organisation of people, space and movement across large landscapes in ways that were deliberate, durable and distinctly their own.

To stress, Amazonia was not uniformly dense or urban. It supported a diversity of types of settlements, from dispersed networks like Moxos to tighter grids like Upano, each of them adapted to local ecological conditions. They shared a low-density urbanism, in the sense of large, interconnected populations without the density of classic cities.

What we still don’t know

How were these societies organised politically and socially? How did they interact with variations in the climate and environment, ranging from the heavy rainfalls and droughts caused by El Niño to rivers forging new routes that could move them away from a settlement within a few generations?

What, if any, connections existed with mountain societies in the Andes? And perhaps most importantly, since both the Casarabe and Upano ceased to build monuments after 1492, what led to their transformation or decline before the arrival of Europeans?

There is active debate between archaeologists over whether these societies transformed because of environmental stress, internal political change, or shifts in things like trade routes or migration.

In the Llanos de Moxos, one possibility is that a prolonged period of climate change affected the Casarabe water-management systems that were so critical to feeding this thriving society. In the Upano Valley, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes may have disrupted settlements and agriculture, although it’s unclear whether that could have led to the area being abandoned.

It seems likely that as we uncover new things, it will reveal more and more integration between different societies. What we are seeing now in Amazonia is much like looking at a satellite image of a country at night: bright, isolated clusters of light – cities that appear disconnected. But as we continue to expand our coverage and fill in the gaps, I think this will change.

What now appear as isolated clusters may also resolve into extensive networks. For example a study across the southern rim of Amazonia has predicted that the kinds of settlement mounds that have been identified so far are likely to occur across about 400,000km², supporting an estimated regional population of roughly 500,000 to 1 million people in the era before the Europeans arrived.

Entire regions may emerge as previously unrecognised centres of population and landscape management. This could be particularly so for the Llanos de Moxos. The whole area covers as much as 200,000km², depending on where you draw the boundaries, stretching into Brazil and even Peru. It is often divided into several apparently distinct cultural regions — the Casarabe (aka the monumental mound region), and then two others called the platform ridge and zanjas (ditches) regions.

As lidar coverage expands and more archaeological work is conducted, we may begin to understand how these societies were economically specialised. We know, for example, that the fortified villages of the zanjas region had fish weirs spanning hundreds of miles that were capable of capturing vast quantities of migratory fish. The platform ridge region consisted of large drained fields, which could potentially produce surpluses of maize. It is conceivable that these belonged to a broader network that supported the more complex Casarabe centres.

Or perhaps – who knows – the relationships were more fluid and reciprocal. For now, the question remains open. But it is precisely this possibility of deep regional integration that lidar is beginning to bring into view. In time, we may even begin to identify Casarabe outposts scattered across the Llanos de Moxos.

What happens next

There’s still a huge amount to be done with lidar. Vast areas, particularly in the Ecuadorian and Peruvian Amazon – remain unexplored. One recent study suggested that there could be more than 10,000 more urban structures of the kind I’ve been describing still hidden throughout Amazonia, all of them dating from pre-European times.

Looking ahead 20 years, it is likely that our map of Amazonia will look very different. One promising technology is satellite-based lidar systems, which could provide broader, though less detailed, datasets across large areas. Advances in machine learning are also beginning to help us identify archaeological features within massive datasets, speeding up a labour-intensive process.

Against this, there are time pressures in some places. Llanos de Moxos, for instance, is unfortunately in rapid transition. The very ground that holds the traces of ancient networks is being transformed by mechanised agriculture and large-scale terraforming for rice cultivation and pastures.

We also need to keep reminding ourselves that lidar is only the first step. What really matters is how it’s brought together with other lines of evidence. Most sites discovered by lidar have yet to be excavated, so we’ll have to do much of that, looking for everything from bones and plants to ceramics and weapons.

So far, most excavation has been in the Casarabe area of the Llanos de Moxos. The reason, for instance, that we know the culture lived primarily on maize was through the discovery of over 60 human skeletons, which underwent carbon isotope analysis. The same research paper also analysed excavated duck bones to show that the Casarabe were feeding them maize too, suggesting animal domestication in a continent that was not generally known for it.

Another fascinating Casarabe find is a single buried skeleton who may have been a leader, because he had a collar of jaguar teeth around his neck. He was also wearing ear pieces made of armadillo shell, studded with mottled blue stones called sodalite – it’s not clear what these were for.

We’ll also need to obtain more precise dates for key events using techniques like radiocarbon dating, and more pinpoint accurate environmental data to help support theories about ancient changes to the climate – as opposed to the wider regional information we’ve tended to rely on until now. Lake sediments are great environmental archives, preserving evidence of things like vegetation change and landscape disturbance.

Also important is comparing genetic data from excavated bones with people who live in these areas today – in dialogue and collaboration with local communities whose histories, memories and knowledge are essential to understanding these landscapes.

It’s all a question of how lidar is brought together with all this other evidence. The most convincing reconstructions will come from the convergence of all of these. One further major challenge ahead, however, will be to bridge the gap between scientific reconstructions and how past peoples understood and inhabited their world. Archaeology is increasingly rich in data, but we have to relate it to lived experience.

That is no easy feat, but it is essential if we are to move from mapping past worlds to understanding them. Crucially, Amazonia – with its rich, still-vibrant Indigenous societies and ethnographic record – offers an exceptional opportunity to do this, providing rare continuities through which to anchor and critically engage our interpretations of the past.

Lessons for today

My own sense is that we will move towards a view of Amazonia not as an exception, in line with the old view that the people lived within an untouched paradise, but as part of a broader pattern of human-environment interaction. The rainforest will be understood not only as a biological system, but as a historical one – shaped, in part, by the people who lived within it.

This does not mean the Amazonian people who simply lived “in harmony” with nature; the evidence points to something more interesting. Although Amazonian societies developed complex, and at times intensive, forms of land use, the evidence consistently shows that they often did so while maintaining continuous forest cover. Far from the large-scale deforestation that we might assume was necessary for such elaborate forms of human life, their practices created mosaics of managed forest, gardens, orchards, wetlands and settlement areas.

We know partly from lake sediment data that people enriched the forests with species that provided food, building materials, medicines and other resources, from açaí and cacao to palms, cinchona and copaiba. The fact that some of these species endure today suggests that past land use left lasting ecological legacies.

In the context of today’s climate crisis, the long-term balance that these people achieved offers a powerful lesson: it is possible to sustain complex societies without destroying the forest, if land use is guided by principles that integrate ecological knowledge, cultural values and a commitment to the continuity of the living landscape.

What lies beneath the Amazon is not just a hidden past. It is a reminder that even the most seemingly untouched landscapes can carry deep histories, waiting – sometimes just beneath our feet – to be revealed.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

---

For you: more from our Insights series:

• Underground data fortresses: the nuclear bunkers, mines and mountains being transformed to protect our ‘new gold’ from attack

• ‘People think you come out … and live happily ever after. If only.’ The reality of life after wrongful conviction

• The grief myth: it doesn’t come in stages or follow a checklist – like love, it endures

• Inside Porton Down: what I learned during three years at the UK’s most secretive chemical weapons laboratory

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

José Iriarte receives funding from the European Research Council, the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the British Academy, National Geographic and the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.

The moment of first contact with extraterrestrials is a staple of science fiction. It usually involves a frantic scientist having a Eureka moment, realising in a single dramatic instant that Earth is being visited by creatures from light-years away.

Aliens are in the public consciousness once again thanks to Steven Spielberg’s latest film, Disclosure Day, which follows a whistleblower’s attempts to reveal extraterrestrial visitations to the world.

In reality, the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence is far more likely to emerge as a faint anomaly in astronomical data, followed by a slow, painstaking process of verification, peer review and intense international deliberation. There might be no single Eureka moment, and no lone scientist with the answer.

As our telescopes have advanced, so too has the complexity of the world we live in. That is why a committee of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) has just voted to accept a major overhaul of the “post-detection protocols” – the scientific code of conduct for what happens after we find evidence of life beyond Earth.

The IAA body that has approved the changes is the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (Seti) Committee. Seti is the collective term for scientific projects dedicated to searching for signs of intelligent alien life in the universe.

The previous version of these principles was adopted way back in 2010. To put that in perspective, in 2010, the “fake news” era hadn’t quite arrived, social media was in its infancy, and the broader idea of “technosignatures”, looking for signs of alien technology such as waste heat from giant structures in space, was still largely on the fringes of mainstream astronomy.

Today, the field has exploded. We are no longer just listening out for artificial radio signals from a few select stars. Projects like Breakthrough Listen have globalised the search, and we now observe the entire electromagnetic spectrum for any sign of advanced technology.

Furthermore, the information landscape has become a minefield. In an era of deepfakes and instant global connectivity, a single unverified claim could trigger global panic or widespread misinformation before scientists have even had a chance to check their data.

At the heart of the 2026 update is a commitment to scientific rigour. The new protocols make it clear: we do not shout “alien” the moment we see a strange blip in our data. If a researcher detects a candidate signal, which could be an artificial radio signal, or something else, such as a sign of alien technology, the first step isn’t a post on social media; it’s a quiet, rigorous attempt to prove themselves wrong. The discovery must be independently authenticated by multiple organisations using different instruments.

Only when a consensus is reached that the signal is truly credible is it brought to the world. This isn’t about secrecy for secrecy’s sake. There is no obligation to disclose verification efforts while they are ongoing, precisely to avoid embarrassing and damaging false alarms.

However, once a discovery is confirmed, the protocols demand full transparency. The data, the analysis methods, and the code used must be made open to the entire global scientific community and, indeed, the general public for replication.

Should we talk back?

One significant addition to the 2026 declaration is the focus on researcher safety. We’ve seen in recent years how scientists at the centre of high profile news stories can become targets for harassment or “doxxing”, where malicious individuals post the scientist’s personal details online. The new guidelines urge institutions to protect their researchers from negative professional repercussions and physical or digital harassment.

The protocols also address the “trash” of our own making: radio frequency interference (RFI). The radio frequency bands that Seti scientists use to listen for E.T. are increasingly polluted – from below by mobile networks, radar and poorly shielded electronics, and from above by the growth of satellite “mega-constellations” like Starlink.

The declaration calls for extraordinary international efforts to protect the frequencies where a signal is detected, ensuring our “communication channel” isn’t drowned out by our own technology.

The most controversial part of Seti isn’t the searching; it’s the messaging. Known as Meti (Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence), the idea of intentionally sending signals to other worlds splits the community. As enshrined in the earlier declarations, the 2026 Declaration remains firm on one point: no response should be sent until there has been a broad, international consultation.

Deciding how to represent Earth to an alien civilisation is a choice that belongs to all of humanity, not a single institution or individual. These consultations must take place through the United Nations or other broadly representative global bodies.

The discovery of intelligent life beyond Earth would stand as one of the most transformative events in human history. To help manage the profound aftermath, the IAA SETI Committee is establishing a permanent Post-Detection Sub-Committee.

This body will not simply be a room full of astronomers; it will include international experts in ethics, law, social sciences and communications to advise on the complex, long term societal implications of contact.

The new protocols themselves are designed to be living documents, supplemented by a separate Code of Conduct and Best Practices Guidelines that will be periodically reexamined and updated to reflect the “best practice” of the day.

The revised declaration has recently been formally adopted by the IAA Board of Trustees and over the rest of the year it will be filed with other appropriate organisations for their endorsement.

The next goal will be to present the finished framework to the wider scientific community at the International Astronautical Congress in Turkey in August 2026. Beyond that, the Committee hope that the new protocols will also be reviewed and noted by the UN.

By establishing these rigorous rules now, we ensure that if, or when, that signal finally arrives, the world is prepared to listen, verify, and respond as one planet.

Michael Garrett led a task group that included Professor Kathryn Denning (York University, Canada), Professor Carol Oliver (University of New South Wales, Australia) and Mr. Les Tennen (Law Offices of Sterns and Tennen, USA, and Full member and Legal Counsel of the International Academy of Astronautics Board of Trustees). This group drafted the updated 2026 protocols.

White storks (Ciconia ciconia) are a majestic bird with a two-metre wingspan and an enormous circular nest.

The recent release of these stunning birds at multiple sites in England, with more releases planned and a public consultation under way has kicked off a debate about whether non-native birds should be part of rewilding projects.

The government advising body Natural England says it does not consider white storks to be native birds. But some experts disagree and say it is a native species and was hunted into extinction in the 1400s.

What is a native species?

In the UK, native species are those which have been present throughout the last 12,000 years. This includes migratory species which breed in or visit the UK. It also includes species which have been eradicated by humans but reintroduced.

In England, a licence is needed to introduce any species which is not ordinarily resident, or a regular visitor, to England. This is partly because these species could become invasive, a term used when a species cause substantial environmental or socioeconomic harm.

But even when species are not native, they can have value for rewilding projects. The white stork’s biggest contribution to rewilding is likely to be their ability to inspire the public interest in nature. Storks in Europe are so popular that there are special stork villages which are managed for tourism, and people can see these iconic species up close.

White storks are definitely regular visitors to England, and rare but present in the subfossil record (the last 4000 years). This status as a regular visitor means they fall somewhere between a native and non-native species – they are not considered a priority for introduction, but no license is required for their release.

Introduced non-native species can cause problems. A good example is Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), brought to the UK by the Victorians as an ornamental plant. It rapidly spreads and causes damage to the structure of buildings and essential services such as water and drainage pipes. Controlling it now costs the UK £247 million each year.

Introduced species are also a major conservation challenge, such as the damage to seabird populations by invasive cats, rats and other animals feeding on their eggs and chicks. If a rewilding project introduces a non-native species, it could become invasive and cause serious disruption to native species already in the landscape.

But evaluating the impact of adding new species to the landscape is important even when a species is considered native. The Scottish beaver trial was conducted to evaluate the impact of introducing beavers (Castor fiber) from Norway in 2008. Eighteen years later, beavers are a key part of many rewilding projects, from London to large estates in Scotland.

What can white storks add?

White storks are charismatic species which are viewed positively by most people, and this could increase engagement with nature. In Poland, tourists travel hundreds of kilometers to visit white storks, making them valuable for rewilding projects which use tourism to raise funds.

Non-native species are also introduced as “ecological analogues” which means they provide the same ecological function as extinct species. The steppe bison (Bison priscus) which roamed the UK in the Pleistocene period were mixed feeders, which means they ate a combination of grasses, leaves and the woody parts of plants. By feeding on a variety of plants and plant parts, mixed feeders like bison can encourage a patchwork of habitats in a landscape. The native steppe bison is extinct in the UK, but projects like Kent Wildlife Trust’s Wilder Blean project have introduced the related, but non-native, European bison (Bison bonasus) to provide these functions.

Adapting to warming climate

Better adaptation to future climates is another reason to include non-native species in rewilding projects. As the UK’s climate changes, species are moving from places where they are considered native to new areas which suit them better. The southern small white butterfly (Pieris mannii) has spread northwards in Europe and was first seen in the UK in 2025. This small butterfly has successfully made the journey over the ocean, but other species may require human help to move to new areas with more suitable climates.

As an island nation with many locally extinct species, the introduction of species has formed a key part of UK conservation, including rewilding projects. It does matter whether a species is native or not. Although both could benefit rewilding projects, non-native species carry greater risks to local environments and have higher regulatory requirements.

The white stork’s status as a regular visitor could allow them to sidestep the regulatory requirements for non-native species, though impact on the environment should also be considered.

But as their nests can attract birds such as swallows and martins, introducing white storks could have broader benefits to the landscape.

Sarah Papworth does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

It may seem like we are on the verge of discovering alien life. In 2025, a press release stated that we have the “strongest hints yet” of extraterrestrial life on the exoplanet K2-18b. And when talking about a collected sample from a rock named “Cheyava Falls” on Mars, Nasa Administrator Sean Duffy said this was the “closest we have ever come” to discovering life on the red planet.

Such moments capture the imagination. But they also raise an important question: what do the majority of scientists actually think?

Surprisingly, we usually don’t know. When a scientific controversy or breakthrough dominates headlines, press officers and journalists often quote a handful of experts. These views may be insightful, but they rarely tell us what the wider scientific community thinks. And yet public discussions frequently rely on phrases such as “the science says” or “scientists believe”, as if there were a clear and measurable answer.

In reality, systematic evidence about scientific opinion is often missing. My colleagues and I recently tried to change that in the domain of astrobiology. Shortly after the two major announcements of possible extraterrestrial life in 2025, we surveyed astrobiologists to understand how expert judgment was distributed across the field.

The first case concerned the exoplanet K2-18b. In April 2025, researchers reported possible traces of molecules called dimethyl sulfide and/or dimethyl disulfide. On Earth, these are associated with biological activity. Media coverage was extensive, with many reports framing the finding as an extraordinary advance in the search for alien life.

The second case came in September, when Nasa announced that Cheyava Falls appeared to preserve a potential biosignature – so-called “leopard spots” which are mineral rings that on Earth are often formed by microbial activity. Again, headlines, and Nasa officials themselves, suggested something momentous.

What scientists actually thought

We surveyed hundreds of astrobiologists from across the global research community, within days of each announcement. We asked a simple question: did scientists think extraterrestrial life had probably been found?

The results revealed a rather cautious picture. For K2-18b, only 6.6% of surveyed astrobiologists agreed that scientists had probably found extraterrestrial life. Nearly two-thirds disagreed, while 28.0% remained neutral. For the Mars case, confidence was higher but still cautious: 15.1% agreed, disagreement fell to 44.6% and neutrality rose to 40.3%.

Looking only at agreement and disagreement, however, misses an important part of the story. The proportion of astrobiologists who strongly disagreed fell dramatically, from 35.1% in the K2-18b case to just 11.1% for Mars. Much of the movement was therefore not from rejection to endorsement, but from strong rejection towards more tentative positions.

In other words, expert opinion moved in structured ways. The shift from K2-18b to Mars was not a simple movement from “no” to “yes”. Instead, the community became more open to the possibility without embracing it outright.

One possible reason is that the two cases involved different kinds of evidence. The K2-18b claim relied on possible atmospheric signatures detected from across interstellar distances, whereas the Martian case concerned a rock that could be studied directly and in much greater detail. At the same time, astrobiologists have long been aware that apparently lifelike features can sometimes arise through non-biological processes. Often, the challenge is not imagining how life could produce a signal, but understanding all the ways nature might produce something similar without life.

Scientific opinion is rarely binary. Public discussion often treats science as though communities either agree or disagree. But the distribution of opinion matters too. Strong agreement, agreement, neutrality, disagreement and strong disagreement can each tell us something different about how a scientific community is responding to a claim.

A large neutral response can indicate several things. Scientists may judge the evidence genuinely inconclusive. They may hold an intermediate level of confidence. Or they may regard a claim as too speculative to endorse or reject decisively. Likewise, movement from strong disagreement towards ordinary disagreement may signal a softening of attitudes even when overall disagreement remains high. Treating scientific opinion as simply “for” or “against” risks flattening these important distinctions.

Beyond extraterrestrial life

The broader lesson extends well beyond extraterrestrial life. In areas such as climate science, pandemics, artificial intelligence or medical research, public conversations frequently invoke scientific consensus.

Sometimes strong agreement genuinely exists. Sometimes it does not. But we often lack systematic ways of measuring what scientists actually think, especially where evidence is emerging or uncertainty remains substantial. Instead, discussions rely heavily on selective quotation, vocal individuals or assumptions about community views.

Efforts to do this more systematically are beginning to emerge. At Durham University, our research group, C-Scope (the Centre for Scientific Community Opinion Polling and Evaluation), studies how expert opinion is distributed and how it changes over time. We are not trying to replace evidence with polling, nor to treat majority opinion as truth. Our aim is to better understand how scientific communities respond to uncertainty.

Scientific knowledge advances through uncertainty, disagreement and gradual revision. If public discussion, and perhaps political will, increasingly turns on claims about what scientists think, we should make more effort to find out.

Peter Vickers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Domestic animals have long been some of our closest companions. While dogs, cats, horses, cattle and chickens have all played major roles in human history, domestic pigeons may be a little less familiar. But they are no slouch when it comes to cultural importance.

Charles Darwin wrote about domestic pigeon diversity to explore his theories of evolutionary change. Contemporary biologists have trained teams of pigeons to identify cancerous cells from certain medical images with an accuracy rivalling that of oncologists.

Now, new research exploring ancient human-pigeon interactions in Cyprus has provided fascinating insights into the earliest stages of this millennia-long inter-species relationship.

There are over 300 breeds of domestic pigeon, from homing pigeons used in competitive racing to the peculiar frillback, which looks like it has survived a rather nasty electric shock. In 2020, a Belgian racing pigeon named New Kim sold for €1.6 million (£1.4 million).

But despite their contributions to contemporary society, we still know little about the origins of these pigeons.

The wild form of all domestic pigeon breeds is a slate-grey bird called the rock dove. Wild populations can still be found in parts of Europe, Africa and Asia.

Rock doves are very shy, living on cliffs and nesting in caves. I study them in Scotland’s Outer Hebrides, where colonies can be seen foraging for grain in fields. Scientists believe that these birds first learned to steal crops thousands of years ago, thus increasing our ancestors’ proximity to them.

Soon, they became a regular source of meat and, thanks to their copious droppings, fertiliser. This led to rock doves being pulled down an evolutionary route which has, over centuries, resulted in today’s proliferation of domestic breeds – plus their superabundant feral city pigeon offshoots, found soiling statues worldwide.

However, the where and when of the earliest phases of this process have remained unclear.

Earliest evidence of domesticated pigeons

Scientists generally think that pigeons were first domesticated in the Middle East and/or the eastern parts of the Mediterranean.

Until now, the earliest direct evidence for domesticated pigeons came from a site in Hellenistic Greece around 2,300 years ago. Depictions of pigeons in Iraq, more than 4,000 years ago, suggest a much earlier relationship – but these are not conclusive evidence.

Plus, it’s tricky to tell domestic and wild birds apart from the shape of their bones alone. For decades, those of us studying pigeons have had to handwave this evidence in our writing, saying they were “probably domesticated as early as 3,000 years ago”.

In Cyprus, small amounts of pigeon bones had previously been found at Neolithic sites (more than 10,000 years old), suggesting there was sporadic hunting of these birds.

Then, starting in the Bronze Age (3,650-3,950 years ago), pigeon figurines became common in Cyprus, and the island developed a strong association with these birds. It was identified in early Greek literature as the birthplace of the love goddess Aphrodite, who is often depicted alongside flocks of doves.

In the new study, researchers examined a collection of bones collected at Hala Sultan Tekke in Cyprus – historically an important city; now a mosque and archaeological site – dating back to the Late Bronze Age, about 3,350 years ago.

Their assessments included a technique called stable isotope analysis, using chemical signatures in the bones to make inferences about what the birds ate. This showed their diets were similar to those of their human neighbours. Rock doves must have been living alongside people at that time, who may even have been deliberately feeding them.

The range of chemical signatures was, as with humans and cattle (but different from fallow deer and other wild species), low. This reflects a consistent diet of grains – a diet shared by humans that could be evidence that the birds were managed by them.

However, three of the 37 pigeons assessed had quite different chemical values – aligning more with wild animal species than humans. This suggests a potential split between cave-dwelling birds (which might have been hunted in the wild and brought back to eat) and full-time urban pigeons which interacted with humans in a more intense way.

A more intimate relationship

Pigeons are well-established as being an ancient part of the human diet. Our Neanderthal cousins hunted them in the caves of Gibraltar as early as 67,000 years ago. But what’s exciting about these new results is that they suggest a much more intimate relationship than predator and prey.

Perhaps most interestingly, some of the bones had been burnt and buried in ritual spaces. Earlier excavations carried out as part of previous research at the same site found a pigeon within a tomb containing an adult man. This suggests rock doves may have had an important cultural role in Cyprus.

Whether this relationship can be called domestication is up for debate. For most of us biologists, domestication involves evolutionary changes occurring due to human use. This is different to our relationship with species like house sparrows, say, which live alongside us but are not managed for use – whether in terms of food, labour or recreation.

Further research tracking human-pigeon interactions through time and space is needed to help us judge exactly when and where domestication-related changes in pigeons’ genetics and appearance began.

Nevertheless, the new study’s results strongly indicate that ancient humans had an intimate interaction with a species which has gone on to become one of the most important birds in our history. Knowing this relationship was active more than 3,000 years ago in Bronze Age Cyprus should help us appreciate the importance of this unique human-animal interaction.

Will Smith's research on rock doves has previously been funded by the Edward Grey Institute and the John Fell Fund (both of the University of Oxford), the British Trust for Ornithology, the Scottish Ornithologists' Club, the British Birds Charitable Trust, the Houghton Trust, and the John Muir Trust. His research is currently funded by the University of Nottingham, the Leverhulme Trust (as an Early Career Fellow), the Genetics Society, and the British Ecological Society. He played no role in the research which is the focus of this article.

Leipzig Zoo in central Germany is a world-leading centre of great ape research. Recent studies have seen chimpanzees there using touchscreen controls to navigate virtual forests and locate food rewards – applying similar techniques to what they would use in the wild.

Other research (of which I was part) has investigated chimpanzees’ social curiosity. We discovered they actively seek out information about others’ interactions, even if it means forgoing food rewards. Keeping track of their peers’ latest social developments appears central to these great apes’ social wellbeing.

But in my decade working with Leipzig Zoo’s chimpanzees and bonobos, one question came up repeatedly. Were differences in how each great ape would cooperate and resolve conflicts simply down to its mood on a particular day? Or were there longer-term explanations – deep-rooted personality traits, for example, or their relationship history with other apes?

Long-term questions like this are very difficult to tackle in single studies, which often draw on just a handful of participants. So, my colleagues and I have developed EVApeCognition: a standardised database of 18 years’ worth of great ape experiences, decisions and relationships.

This lays the groundwork for answering many more questions about these extraordinary creatures’ cognition, intelligence and social behaviour. If a bonobo showed striking generosity towards a partner in 2008, for example, we can piece together whether that behaviour was linked with their stable disposition, a particular relationship, or some other factor.

Changing how we study great apes

In all, EVApeCognition comprises 262 experimental datasets from 150 scientific publications between 2004 and 2021. These were all overseen by the Wolfgang Köhler Primate Research Centre, headquartered at Leipzig Zoo. Eighty-one great apes participated in these studies, with the vast majority (78) taking part in more than one.

These wide-ranging social cognition studies have assessed how great apes think about other apes, how they cooperate, and to what extent they are motivated to help their peers. But there have been limitations to this research.

In the wild, great apes are social animals who live in stable groups with histories, hierarchies and relationships that change over time. In contrast, a large majority of the studies in our database were with apes in pairs that imposed strict control conditions.

So, moving to larger-group studies could offer a more ecologically relevant window on their cognition and social behaviour. Group settings can present apes with different problems that map more closely on to the social challenges they face every day in the wild.

Our most recent study, led by Kirsten Sutherland at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, found that great ape quartets maintained access to a pool of yoghurt for significantly longer than pairs did. Social tolerance played a key role, with more tolerant quartets maintaining access to the yoghurt for longer periods.

We found that cooperation was strongest when the highest-ranking individual showed restraint, emphasising the importance of tolerant leadership.

The new database also highlights an imbalance running through captive great ape research: chimpanzees dominate the record, while bonobos, gorillas and orangutans remain comparatively underrepresented.

Bonobos – which, unlike chimpanzees, are known to cooperate in the wild outside the limits of their group’s territory – would be particularly compelling subjects for this research shift towards studying larger groups.

Closing the gap with wild settings

Experimental performance does not occur in a social vacuum. A great ape’s willingness to cooperate on a task on a given Tuesday may not only reflect its intelligence, but whether it groomed its partner that morning, or if its status had changed within the group.

Providing this context is essential to understanding how everyday experience and social relations shape their cognitive development. Fortunately, the field is moving in promising directions, with the EVApeCognition database one piece of a larger picture.

The global ManyPrimates project, established in 2017, has already produced the most comprehensive overview of primate short-term memory. This shows that genetic lineage has played a larger role than ecology or sociality in the evolution of their short-term memory.

At the level of higher-order reasoning, we now know that chimpanzees update their beliefs by considering all sources of information before making a choice. A 2025 study showed they remained committed to an initial belief when counter-evidence was weaker, but revised this when the supporting evidence became stronger – a pattern long thought to be distinctly human.

Perhaps most ambitiously, the divide between captive and wild settings is also beginning to close. Research led by Sofie Forss at the University of Zurich, for example, has found a systematic “captivity effect” when presenting the same new stimuli to both wild and captive orangutans. The wild individuals responded far more cautiously to novelty than their zoo-housed counterparts.

Taken together, these efforts point in a common direction: toward an understanding of great ape cognition that is at once broader in scope, richer in context, and more faithful to the complexity of their social lives.

Alejandro Sánchez-Amaro does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

For captive animals, engaging in natural behaviour is a pillar of the animal welfare framework. But when it comes to sex, one important behaviour has been largely ignored, and sometimes even punished: masturbation.

Solo sex is surprisingly common across the animal kingdom. It is well documented in primates. Tortoises are surprisingly vocal during their solo lovemaking endeavours, if not very graceful. Camels masturbate by rubbing their penises in the sand and porcupines make inventive use of all sorts of objects.

Our new study could change how other scientists view masturbation in birds and improve their welfare.

Masturbation also seems to be common in birds. A quick internet search brings up an abundance of video clips on social media and dedicated posts on bird-keeping forums, largely from worried or bemused hobbyist bird keepers.

It has often been treated as an abnormal problem behaviour in captive birds (particularly parrots). Folklore husbandry has assumed it is the undesirable outcome of stress, bad health or poor environment. Bird keepers often therefore discourage masturbation via punishment or veterinary interventions such as diet or care changes and, sometimes, even drugs and surgery. Despite the welfare implications, masturbation in birds had been largely unexplored by the scientific community.

We set out to change that, by investigating the distribution and evolutionary history of masturbation in birds for the first time. We studied 120 species of bird across 22 major groups, gathering data from the scattered scientific literature, online reports and community forums, and surveys of bird experts.

Our study found that masturbation is widespread across birds with a strong evolutionary history, meaning that it’s an ancient trait probably similar in closely related species. Although we found more records of masturbation in male birds, it occurs in both sexes and across all age groups.

Solo sex also seems to be linked to species that mate with multiple partners, supporting the idea that it might help to increase reproductive success when there is a high degree of competition over fertilisation. For instance, in males it may flush out old sperm to leave newer (better condition) sperm for mating. In females it may increase sexual arousal to help with sneak mating with males other than their partner.

Wild behaviour

Crucially, we discovered that masturbation is actually less common in captivity than the wild, and more common in birds reared by their own parents than by humans. What this tells us is that masturbation in birds is neither an unnatural behaviour, nor a consequence of captivity. Given this finding, it is important that birds are not prevented from masturbation. Of course, as with any behaviour, there may be extreme cases where chronic masturbation could indicate underlying health or husbandry issues.

Avian self-pleasure is usually a rather inelegant affair, in which a bird rubs their cloaca (a shared orifice for both excretion and reproduction) against an object, like a branch, twig or toy. This is often accompanied by a lot of flapping and self-satisfied vocalisation.

One potential reason for the lack of scientific studies exploring avian masturbation may be because the cloaca is thought to have fewer nerve clusters, and therefore lower sensitivity, than our own genitals.

Clearly however, birds are getting some satisfaction from masturbation, so perhaps there is more to a bird’s sensations during sex than has previously been recognised. Further exploration of this could have important implications for both welfare and captive breeding programmes. While sexual pleasure may not be exactly the same experience as for mammals, it is wildly premature to dismiss the idea that birds also feel pleasure.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

A fossil mammal tooth smaller than a grain of rice does not announce itself loudly. It must be hard won from sediment and stone. Then, under a microscope, it reveals itself – no longer just a speck of blackness but a surface of cusps, ridges and worn edges.

It is a small object, easily missed. Yet five such teeth from northern Alaska, belonging to three newly discovered species of long-extinct rodent-like mammals, hold an unexpectedly large history: of polar environments, shifting continents, winter darkness – and of mammals moving through this world that was colder, stranger and more connected than we once imagined.

The fossil mammal teeth at the centre of my new study with US colleagues come from the Late Cretaceous Prince Creek Formation, around 73 million years ago. At that time, northern Alaska’s palaeolatitude was roughly 80-85°N (10-15° closer to the north pole than it is today).

Our discovery shows the Arctic was not simply a cold, lifeless edge of the Cretaceous world, but a place where mammals adapted, diversified, migrated and originated. It raises deeper questions about what it means for a species to be native to a place whose landscapes, climates and inhabitants are forever changing.

The Arctic is not an empty landscape now, and nor was it in the deep past. It was a distinctive and demanding biome, with months of winter darkness, freezing temperatures and strong seasonality.

Rivers crossed this landscape. Plants grew through the long light of summer. Dinosaurs lived and thrived there, and evidence suggests they reared their young in the Arctic. There was also a diversity of birds, fish and mammals: tenacious denizens of the polar dark.

The teeth we found

Finding miniscule fossil mammals is not the kind of palaeontology that begins with a spectacular skeleton weathering from a cliff. It begins with bulk sediment. Bags and buckets of it.

The material is dug out, washed, sieved through fine screens, dried, then meticulously sorted grain by grain beneath a microscope.

Mammalian palaeontology often depends on fragments: a tooth cusp, a root, a worn edge of enamel. It asks for patience more than drama. The field site may be remote, the landscape vast, but the discovery happens at the scale of a fingertip. It is an act of attention.

The five teeth described in our new study are multituberculates: a group of rodent-like mammals that lived alongside dinosaurs. They are the longest-lived mammal group to date, with a history spanning well over 100 million years. Our own species Homo sapiens, by comparison, is only a few hundred thousand years old.

But their success was not permanent. After surviving for longer than any other mammalian lineage, multituberculates eventually vanished, with their last representatives disappearing around the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, roughly 34 million years ago.

The teeth we found at Prince Creek represent three new species: Camurodon borealis, Kaniqsiqcosmodon polaris and Qayaqgruk peregrinus. The last of these sits especially close to the heart of the story.

Qayaqgruk peregrinus has close evolutionary affinities with a group of multituberculates discovered in Mongolia,, indicating that, many millions of years ago, these minute mammals moved between Asia and North America through a polar land corridor.

This was not the world of Pangaea, the single giant continent of earlier Earth history. By 73 million years ago, the continents were taking on more familiar shapes, but they had not yet settled into the map we know today.

North America was split by a shallow inland sea, and its far northwestern edge lay near northeastern Asia, creating a high-latitude corridor through which animals could move between continents.

The Arctic corridor itself was not unknown. Fossils of dinosaurs, birds and some mammals have shown that animals were migrating between Asia and North America during the Cretaceous.

But for multituberculates, the picture was much less clear. Their fossil record left open whether they crossed between the continents early and repeatedly, or only later in the Cretaceous. Qayaqgruk peregrinus helps close that gap.

Its name draws on the language of the Iñupiat, Alaska Native people, from the region where the fossils were found. Qayaq is a legendary Iñupiaq hero and wanderer whose journeys are told in The Epic of Qayaq.

Many of its Mongolian relatives carry the suffix -baatar, meaning hero in Mongolian, so the name also links its Alaskan discovery to its Asian evolutionary affinities.

Kaniqsiqcosmodon polaris is the oldest known member of the Microcosmodontidae family of multituberculates, suggesting this lineage, later known from North America, may have had a polar origin. Camurodon borealis represents the northernmost known occurrence of the North American family Cimolomyidae.

Five teeth are not a complete ecosystem, but they are enough to show these mammals were not occasional strays at the edge of their range. They belonged to the Arctic.

Surviving mass extinction

Survival in this environment was not a passive condition. Multituberculates survived through the end-Cretaceous mass extinction, 66 million years ago, when as much as 75% of all life on Earth went extinct, including the non-avian dinosaurs.

The adaptations that helped these ancient Arctic species live though deep winter cold, short dark days and seasonal scarcity may have given them advantages when the world’s ecosystems were devastated.

This is not to say the Arctic was a refuge in any simple sense. Evolution is rarely simple – it is full of bottlenecks and unexpected openings. But tiny mammals already adapted to seasonal scarcity may have carried some advantages into a disrupted world.

The Alaskan multituberculates did not belong to the Arctic because they had always been there, or because their lineages had never moved. They belonged because they were part of that ecosystem for a time: shaped by its dark, its cold, its flora, its fauna, its seasons and its routes of passage.

Fossils make this kind of belonging harder to define, but more interesting. They give the word indigenous, at least when we use it for species, a chronology: deep time shows that belonging is not always a matter of original presence, but of ecological participation across changing landscapes.

These five multituberculate teeth from the Prince Creek Formation are small enough to vanish in a pinch of sediment. Yet in their enamel are continents, seasons, darkness, ancestry and journeys.

They show that the ancient Arctic was not an evolutionary margin. It was a living biome, a passage between worlds, and part of the deep history of mammalian evolution.

Sarah Shelley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Quantum computers are coming. Or, at least, that’s what current predictions say. These machines harness the power of quantum mechanics, the set of rules governing how physics operates at atomic and sub-atomic scales.

Because of this, they operate in radically different ways to current machines. Tasks requiring trillions of years on existing supercomputers might be reduced to days on future quantum computers. They could tackle a range of challenges that are out of reach for existing technology.

These potential challenges include code-breaking. In 1994, the American computer scientist Peter Shor came up with a quantum algorithm capable of breaking the form of encryption that would later underpin routine email messaging and internet security. Shor’s advance drew interest from the US military and intelligence community, which began investing in the emerging field.

While decryption is often touted as a potential use for quantum computers, there are now protections against attempts to use them in this way. And in recent decades, other exciting applications have emerged. So is the threat to secure communications being overstated?

Currently, nobody knows for sure which quantum computing technologies will prevail, when the obstacles to their production will be overcome, or who will build one first.

But we can make educated guesses. Quantum computers built for specialised tasks will probably arrive before machines for more generalised uses. Between 10 and 20 years is a plausible guesstimate for the emergence of practical machines – amid considerable uncertainty. The US and China appear to be market leaders, so the big breakthrough could come from one of them.

It’s perhaps understandable why decryption is the poster child for quantum computing applications. The security of our digital world relies on cryptography, which provides a toolkit of mathematical techniques that underpin cyber security.

Digital secrets are protected by encryption, which converts meaningful data into an unintelligible form. If quantum computers could unscramble current encryption, they could expose highly sensitive data. Useful, perhaps, for nation states tracking terror cells or spying on strategic competitors – but bad news for everyone else.

Cryptography apocalypse

If we fail to act, this digital disaster might indeed happen. But researchers in this field have not been sitting on their hands. In the last decade, they have developed standards for new encryption techniques offering protection against quantum code-breaking. This area is known as post-quantum cryptography.

Many governments have announced timelines designed to motivate organisations to migrate from existing cryptography to the new post-quantum encryption standards. If everyone moves swiftly, by the time cryptographically-relevant quantum computers are built, our data should be sufficiently protected.

Yet stories of a pending cryptography apocalypse – sometimes referred to as “Q day” – still abound. So why, as we manoeuvre towards a future protected by post-quantum cryptography, are headlines still obsessed with decryption?

---

Read more: Is a quantum-cryptography apocalypse imminent?

---

Well, everyone loves an origin story. The quantum algorithm developed in 1994 by Peter Shor caused a sensation. Cryptographers immediately commenced the hunt for new types of encryption invulnerable to Shor’s algorithm. More significantly, this theoretical breakthrough helped drive the actual development of quantum computers, since Shor’s algorithm was arguably the first convincing application for these machines.

There’s a tangibility to this quantum threat. The (often overblown) idea of a Q-Day posits that we awake one morning and our cyber security has suddenly been lost. In contrast, most constructive use cases for quantum computers seem more abstract. They might greatly assist mathematical modelling of scientific problems such as climate change, along with complex simulations of how physics works.

Other end uses sound fantastical. For example, quantum computers might help us find a cure for cancer or harness vast clean energy from nuclear fusion. In the absence of a proven killer app, decryption often prevails as a prominent, imagined end use. And the prospect of doomsday always focuses human minds.

Other uses

Quantum computing has also become firmly embedded in great power competition. China, the US and Russia, among others, are all pushing the development of quantum computers. To some in government, the consequences of losing a quantum computing race are unthinkable. What if your strategic rival can decrypt your secrets, but you can’t decrypt theirs?

The question is, are these anxieties really driving the stacks of cash being pumped into the field?

Setting aside political advantages, as well as criminal gains, the real money from quantum computing is not going to be made from decryption.

---

Read more: Five ways quantum technology could shape everyday life

---

A range of quantum computing companies are now promoting their technologies and there’s barely a mention of decryption. Instead, other compelling uses are being trumpeted. Quantum computers would excel at optimisation, which is all about finding the most efficient solutions to complex problems that classical computers struggle with.

This could transform parts of the finance industry that deal with large-scale, complex transactions, and intricate investment strategies. It could also make supply chain logistics easier to manage. Quantum computers could supercharge drug discovery and lead to the development of new industrial materials.

They may be capable of greatly enhanced predictive modelling, leading to more accurate weather prediction and geopolitical risk analysis. Quantum computers might also boost artificial intelligence technology.

Most of these remain unrealised visions, but the prospect of breakthroughs and enrichment fuels investment.

So, there’s a genuine geopolitical power struggle in play, but it’s no longer solely or even primarily about decrypting secrets. Quantum competition between great powers concerns first-mover advantage across a broad base of technological domains. Ultimately, it’s about who’s going to make money.

Early progress seems most likely in industrial materials and optimisation. Later opportunities may involve advanced mathematical modelling and predictive simulations.

If quantum computers surpass the sceptics’ doubts to become capable of breaking current encryption, this will probably be a much later development. And if everyone’s done their post-quantum cryptography migration, it will hopefully be largely irrelevant.

But given how long cryptographic upgrades can take, cybersecurity slowpokes may still have a lot to lose.

Keith Martin receives funding from the EPSRC.

Briana Bowen receives funding from the EPSRC and has previously received funding from the US Government.

William Adams was entranced by energy. As a young man, his interest was nursed by working as a clerk in a London patent office in the 1860s. This gave him an early look at some of the first British designs for exploiting solar energy using mirrors, water or both.

Adams would later recount his excitement at reading about the French mathematician Augustin Mouchot’s invention of the first machine ever to run on energy from the Sun. The device, which connected a solar boiler to a specifically designed steam engine, was warmly received by Napoleon III when it was presented to the emperor in 1866.

Inspired, Adams soon designed and patented his own rudimentary solar boiler. The only problem was, he needed more sun.

---

This series is dedicated to lesser-known, highly influential scientists who have had a powerful influence on the careers and research paths of many others, including the authors of these articles.

---

When offered the chance to become deputy registrar of Bombay by the Indian city’s governor, Sir Philip Edmond Wodehouse, Adams jumped at the opportunity. There, he became the first Briton to design, build and test a fully-functioning solar steam engine fit for industrial purpose.

But he also came up against the conservatism of India’s colonial rulers, who did not see this Bombay bureaucrat for the energy visionary that he undoubtedly was.

‘The rays beat like missiles’

Adams arrived in Bombay in 1873 to find it in the middle of a cotton boom, with mills popping up like mushrooms across the city. The population was growing so quickly that firewood was depleted for miles around. The landscape grew “bald as a billiard ball”, as Adams put it.

Every morning before setting off for work near Bombay’s central fort, Adams would set up his outdoor laboratory at his home in the southernmost Colaba district, near the open sea. He instructed an Indian fundhi (skilled carpenter) to build a set of three-tiered wooden shelves to hold 18 looking glasses.

“Each glass was moveable on a swivel in the same manner as an ordinary toilet glass”, Adams explained, meaning he could pivot each glass by “the touch of the finger”.

Later, for open-air experiments, Adams used two banks of mirrors (36 in total) which made “the mercury in the thermometer boil, leaping up to over 670 degrees fahrenheit”. He then placed a copper cylinder containing three gallons of water in the focus of all 36 mirrors, making it boil in exactly 20 minutes.

But Adams’s ambition did not end there. To reach sufficient pressure in the boiler to drive a steam engine, this bureaucrat-cum-engineer built a giant concave mirror, 24 feet in diameter. He then sent for his London solar boiler, which was delivered by ship to Bombay in 1876.

One fine morning, Adams – wearing dark glasses for safety – turned his giant concave mirror on the copper cylinder filled with water. “The rays beat like missiles in a continuous and incessant storm of solar fire,” he wrote.

An hour later, the cylinder registered 55 pounds of pressure per square inch. He hired a steam engine of 3 horsepower and connected it to the boiler: the pressure moved the pistons. Adams had built the first working, British-designed solar steam engine.

For a fortnight, he kept the pump going near his bungalow in Colaba – proudly and sweatily displaying his innovation to government officials, newspaper reporters, mill owners and the local Indian communities. Members of the public were invited to witness his experiments too, via a notification in a Bombay newspaper.

‘An inexhaustible source of wealth’

In 1877, Adams wrote a letter to the editor of the Times of India arguing that the application of his solar steam engine would “make India the seat of the principal manufacturing industries of the world”.

Later, in his wildly ahead-of-its-time treatise Solar Heat: A Substitute for Fuel in Tropical Countries (1878), Adams argued that countries near the equator “possess, in their clear skies, a gratuitous and inexhaustible source of wealth, equal to that which western nations have to dig, with infinite labour and toil, from the bowels of the Earth”.

Adams sketched out plans to use solar heat for everything from cotton gins (engines to separate cotton fibres from seeds) to Hindu crematoria. He called upon the colonial British government to invest in this promising substitute for coal, which was then being imported to India at great expense.

Adams envisioned solar energy transforming the Raj. Just like the coal-combusting steam engine had replaced the waterwheel in England, he argued that thermal heat could now replace fossil fuels in India. But his colonial bosses were not persuaded.

‘Too subversive’

Adams was part of a 19th-century wave of global research into solar steam engines, as I explore in my postdoctoral project and upcoming book. But in contrast to fellow pioneers including Frenchman Mouchot, Adams built his solar steam engine to stimulate local Indian industry, not to benefit the colonial government.

The locals shared Adams’s belief in this technology. One even wrote to Scientific American magazine to express their desire for the rapid adoption of solar power:

My residence is in a tropical part of India … where fuel is scarce and dear … In this part of the country (about 300 miles north of Bombay), there is a great opening for cheap power in small units.

Bombay’s new governor Sir Richard Temple concluded, however, that solar heat “could not be used for commercial purposes on a large scale”. He argued that local factory owners would not like giving “the workmen a holiday on days when the sky is not clear”.

In truth, Adams’s invention was too subversive for Britain’s colonial officials and capitalists. In less sunny climes, solar energy – tethered to the seasonal rhythms of nature – might negate their commercial ambition for timeless industrial production. But they also saw India as an important market for British coal exports.

While a few mill owners adopted Adams’s auxiliary solar heater for their steam engines, most regarded it as a primitive contraption unfit to satisfy the demands of modern civilisation.

Increasingly frustrated that neither the industrial capitalists nor the colonial government supported his vision, Adams abandoned further experiments. His dream of India switching away from coal to solar power, from combustion to concentration, would not happen for at least another century.

Now, however, India is a world leader in the global energy transition. It heads the International Solar Alliance, and is the third largest solar power generator in the world.

Which begs the question: how much further advanced would this technology be had Adams’s 19th-century solar experiments been embraced by India’s colonial rulers at the time?

Sebastian Egholm Lund receives funding from the Carlsberg Foundation. His upcoming book, Changing the Climate at the Fin de Siècle, is published by Cambridge University Press (September 2026).

For the last few years, I’ve been seconded to assist the Catholic Church’s unprecedented global grassroots listening initiative. Just as that process drew to a close, I received a surprise request: would I help Pope Leo XIV launch his first social encyclical, focused on what it means to be human in a time of artificial intelligence?

It is difficult to think of a more important theme right now than the impact of digital technologies, AI and robotics on every level of our social interactions and structures.

The Vatican has addressed technological questions before. My research includes the social teaching of popes since 1891, starting with Pope Leo XIII’s influential text Rerum Novarum (Of New Things), which addressed the impact of the industrial revolution on working people (and which this new text commemorates). A range of previous letters have addressed both the opportunities and dangers of technology.

Of course, the Vatican does have a chequered history with regard to theological reflection on scientific and medical developments. Over the past decade, it has been pursuing focused and, in my view, productive conversations with the AI tech sector through initiatives such as the Minerva Dialogues – a series of closed-door conferences with leading figures from both worlds. In this sense, the concern with AI does not spring from nowhere.

Nonetheless, Magnifica Humanitas (Magnificent Humanity) was a landmark moment: a papal text addressing AI as its central focus for the first time, launched by a pope in person – this does not usually happen – in the presence of the very industry it sought to critique. The encyclical panel on which I sat also included Chris Olah, co-founder of the AI tech firm Anthropic.

All of this meant a much higher level of media and public interest. In the run-up to launch, questions about the make-up of the panel and how equipped a pope is to comment on AI showed me this text would be controversial. And that’s OK.

The job of the text is both to offer the stimulus of a particular tradition – Catholic social teaching – and to encourage debate among people with a variety of views about what makes for a common good use of AI technologies. Our task as a panel was to explore both of these realities.

Not anti-technology but pro-human

The Vatican was unconcerned about the encyclical’s lack of neutrality because it declares its hand transparently – and does not believe the tech sector operates with a neutral mindset either.

The inclusion of Anthropic on the panel was welcomed by some as a sign of serious engagement with the sector on these issues. For others, it showed a risk of naïvety about the Vatican’s corporate capture, or of privileging the voices of capital.

The document calls for a movement out of the silos of private boardrooms where the morality (and profits) of new technologies is decided by the few, into a public space of transparency, participation, common benefit and shared power – if that is possible.

Olah did at least note that the tech sector requires exactly the kind of conversation this text promotes: a public, shared conversation in which the shape of our working, educational, political and social lives are not determined by a few wealthy individuals.

The text is neither anti-technology nor anti-industry. It is pro-human, pro-social and resistant to false religious claims that AI will, in itself, save us. It resists the idea that human limits are things to be despised and overcome with models of perfected or eternal bodies or minds.

It stresses that AI should enhance the human capacity for finite, embodied relationships, for meaningful work as part of a dignified life, and for the human person to be recognised as an end – not a tool of utility, power or profit.

Technology is as old as humanity. It is part of how we shape and steward our world. It preserves and fosters our survival, and the social lives that give us meaning. Pope Leo was clear: what matters are the ends to which these new AI technologies are set, and their relationship with the Earth’s natural resources.

Reshaping the idea of being human

The Vatican has issued previous texts comparing human and artificial intelligence, as well as a separate text critiquing trans- and post-humanisms. The added dimension in Leo’s first social encyclical is to ask questions about how technologies are reshaping the very idea of being human – rescripting work, education, politics and warfare – and how they are enacting and enmeshed in new cultures of dominating power.

The text interrogates freedom and flourishing – two categories central to Enlightenment thought.

Within the church, there are theologians who are engaged optimists regarding the possibility of AI technologies, and those who are more guarded. There are also some who might be characterised as “radical pessimists” – an honourable tradition to be distinguished from the merely cynical.

The new text draws from each of these perspectives, while remaining closest to a prudential middle. It names the risk of new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities. Any positive and hopeful account of such new tech must be able to face and respond to these realities.

Above all, this text marks a new phase in the papacy’s public (rather than closed-door) involvement in debates about AI technology. Its invitation is for a social dialogue on many levels across many groups, sectors and stakeholders.

My experience is that views on these matters are lively and fiercely contested. But above all, they are urgent.

Anna Rowlands is a member of the Dicastery for Integral Human Development at the Vatican. This is a governance role. She has also served as an advisor to the Vatican in various capacities for the last five years.

As an expert on personality disorders, people often ask me about psychopathy. It seems everybody has had an ex, a boss, a neighbour or a relative who they suspect has traits of it. People are curious about how to recognise psychopathy, and whether it can explain certain harmful behaviour. It’s easy to see why. Psychopathic people are everywhere – from books and movies to newspaper articles and academic papers.

But while such questions are usually asked with confidence, the answers are far less straightforward. In fact, a growing number of academic papers have failed to find evidence that psychopathy exists at all. Could the disorder be something we’ve just invented because it’s convenient, doing away with old concepts of good and evil? Some experts believe so. But I am not so sure.

Psychopathy is normally identified by a few specific traits. These include a lack of empathy and remorse, callousness, impulsiveness, shallow emotions, arrogance and manipulation.

We’ve all come across people who have a combination of these traits. Perhaps they are emotionally detached, cruel, untruthful or even violent. There is no denying that such characteristics exist. What is difficult to prove is that people with psychopathy actually have those traits. Why? I believe it’s down to a mismatch between what we expect psychopathy to look like and how personality actually unfolds in the real world. And this gap is where much of the confusion begins.

The empathy paradox

A recent systematic review of empathy research, which included 66 studies and 5,711 people assessed with a common tool called the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL), found that 89% of all tests failed to show that those with psychopathic traits were less empathetic than others. If psychopathy is defined by a lack of empathy, why is it so difficult to demonstrate? At first glance, this seems like a serious challenge to the concept itself.

---

The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.

---

A similar lack of clear evidence has been found for other traits often linked to psychopathy. Research examining shallow emotions, in particular a lack of fear, using measures such as skin conductance (which can estimate sweating), startle reflexes and autonomic arousal (increased heart rate) has often produced mixed findings. Claims that people with psychopathy have extreme impairments in moral reasoning have likewise been challenged.

In fact, recent reviews have questioned whether any single deficit in a specific trait can be consistently linked to psychopathy. So what’s going on?

As we shall see, the issue may not be that empathy, immoral reasoning or a lack of fear is absent in those with psychopathy, but that these traits are being measured in overly narrow ways.

A zombie idea?

Some researchers have taken these inconsistencies a step further. In a recent essay in Aeon, one of the authors behind this body of work argues that psychopathy may be what researchers call a “zombie idea”. This refers to a concept that continues to be widely accepted despite weak or inconsistent evidence, like the old idea that the Earth was at the centre of the universe.

The idea is that psychopathy persists because it is intuitively appealing. Like outdated scientific beliefs that lingered long after being challenged, it offers a compelling explanation for behaviour that is otherwise difficult to understand.

It’s an interesting thought. Psychopathy is culturally familiar and has long been associated with extreme and disturbing behaviour. This makes it an attractive concept for explaining antisocial acts – it offers a seemingly objective framework for behaviour that can feel deeply unsettling. It provides a sense of certainty in situations that are complex and uncomfortable.

Take the rapist and serial killer Ted Bundy. Even when he faced justice for his heinous crimes, Bundy didn’t show remorse – always sporting a movie star smile. This is impossible for most people to comprehend, and Bundy has been branded as psychopathic countless times. This has in turn helped to shape public and scientific ideas about what the label means.

But this is precisely where the problem lies. Human behaviour is rarely so clear-cut. Bundy himself had a range of different problems that may have contributed, including obsession and substance abuse issues. The appeal of psychopathy as a concept may come from its simplicity – the idea that there is a distinct type of person who lacks empathy and poses a clear risk. The reality is likely to be far more nuanced. And the “zombie idea” argument forces us to confront the possibility that the concept has endured because it is useful rather than well-defined – academically, forensically and culturally.

How psychopathy is measured

To understand why the evidence is so mixed, let’s look at how psychopathy is actually assessed. In psychiatric and forensic settings, it is most commonly measured using structured tools such as the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). This approach combines interview data with information about a person’s behaviour and life history.

This means that clinicians consider traits such as superficial charm, grandiosity, pathological lying and lack of remorse alongside behavioural patterns such as repeated rule-breaking, unstable relationships, poor work history, aggression, early conduct problems and criminal records.

This has proven useful in prisons and psychiatric units. Recent evidence, drawing on many studies, suggests the PCL-R can indeed help identify future risky behaviour in such settings, particularly in relation to re-offending and institutional misconduct. This implies that structured assessments may capture something clinically relevant in high-risk populations.

Another issue is that psychopathy is not included as a formal diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Instead, it overlaps with antisocial personality disorder, which focuses more on patterns of behaviour such as rule-breaking, impulsivity and aggression.

This creates an important tension. Psychopathy is often used to describe underlying personality traits, while antisocial personality disorder is defined by observable behaviours. In practice, these do not always align. Someone may engage in harmful behaviour without displaying the emotional features associated with psychopathy, while others may show emotional detachment without criminality.

This ambiguity is not just a technical issue. It shapes how the construct is used in practice. In forensic settings, psychopathy is often treated as a meaningful indicator of risk. But if the boundaries of the construct are unclear, then its application becomes more difficult to justify.

The real problem: measurement

A large part of the difficulty may therefore lie in how we measure psychopathy – and the traits we believe underlie it.

Importantly, many of the studies included in the recent psychopathy and empathy review used the PCL-R in forensic settings, meaning psychopathy was often assessed through structured clinical interviews alongside criminal histories and file reviews. In other words, the psychopathy assessments themselves were frequently extensive and clinically informed.

Yet despite this, the evidence linking psychopathy to empathy deficits remained inconsistent. This suggests the problem may lie less in identifying psychopathic traits themselves and more in how empathy is tested.

Many studies rely on narrow laboratory tasks or self-report questionnaires designed to capture specific components of empathy, such as recognising facial expressions, in controlled settings. While these methods offer experimental control, they may fail to reflect how empathy operates in real-world relationships, conflicts and situations involving personal gain.

The recent review on psychopathy and empathy, for example, drew on a wide range of standard empathy measures, including self-report questionnaires and laboratory tasks such as recognising emotions in faces or voices, interpreting photographs of eyes, or responding to hypothetical scenarios. These are established tools, but they often assess specific components of empathy rather than how empathy operates in real-world relationships, conflicts or situations involving personal gain.

Empathy is not a single ability. It involves recognising emotions, understanding perspectives and responding appropriately. Someone may be able to recognise distress without feeling concern, or understand another person’s perspective without acting on it. These distinctions are rarely captured in simple tests. Different studies may be measuring different aspects of empathy, leading to apparently contradictory results.

For example, how someone responds to distress may depend on who the other person is, what the relationship is and what is at stake. These are not variables that can easily be reproduced in a laboratory setting. A person with psychopathy may in fact have some level of basic empathy, as measured on these tests, but be able to completely switch it off when it’s in their interest. As a result, the findings may tell us more about how people perform in artificial laboratory conditions than how they behave in everyday life.

In this sense, researchers may be trying to capture a complex pattern of traits using tools that are too narrow to detect it reliably.

In other academic studies, the measurement of psychopathy in itself could be a problem. When psychopathic traits are measured in the general population, such as students or people taking tests online, they often rely on self-report questionnaires rather than the full PCL-R – asking people about to assess their own thoughts, feelings and behaviour. Such studies were indeed included in the review about moral reasoning and psychopathic traits.

But psychopathy is, after all, famously linked to lying and manipulation, pointing to a deeper paradox. Researchers are relying on self-report measures to assess traits that, by definition, involve deception. If someone is motivated to present themselves in a certain way, or does not recognise their own behaviour as a problem, then their responses may not reflect their underlying traits.

Different kinds of psychopathy?

Another issue is how psychopathy has traditionally been framed in clinical practice. It is often treated as a distinct category – something a person either is or is not. But research on personality more broadly suggests that traits exist on a spectrum. Characteristics such as empathy, impulsivity and emotional regulation vary across individuals rather than being confined to a specific group.

If psychopathic traits are distributed along a continuum, then it is perhaps unsurprising that studies struggle to find clear-cut differences between groups. What looks like inconsistency in the evidence may instead reflect the fact that we are trying to draw firm boundaries around something that is inherently gradual and variable.

This shift is already reshaping how personality disorders are understood more broadly, moving away from rigid categories.

Even within traditional models of psychopathy, researchers have long recognised that psychopathic traits can vary. The PCL-R, for example, separates Factor 1 traits such as superficial charm, grandiosity, manipulation and lack of remorse from Factor 2 traits such as impulsivity, aggression, irresponsibility and chronic rule-breaking.

These two dimensions often relate to different outcomes and may appear in different combinations. For example, there may be more Factor 1 personality traits without severe antisocial behaviour in the general population, while there are more elevated Factor 2 traits in prisons. This means that studies focusing on different samples may appear inconsistent – measuring different parts of the same broader construct.

A useful comparison can be found in research on narcissism. Narcissism was once treated as a single construct, typically associated with grandiosity and entitlement. However, it is now widely understood to include distinct forms, such as grandiose and vulnerable narcissism.

Grandiose narcissism is characterised by confidence, dominance and a sense of superiority. But, as I and other researchers have shown, vulnerable narcissism, by contrast, is associated with insecurity, hypersensitivity and emotional reactivity. Both fall under the same broader construct, but they present very differently in everyday life.

This distinction matters because it shows how a concept can appear inconsistent until its underlying variation is recognised. Psychopathy may be in a similar position. What appears to be conflicting evidence in the literature may reflect the fact that different studies are capturing different aspects of a broader construct, often using different measures of psychopathy to do so.

Gender differences

Another limitation is that much of the initial research on psychopathy has been conducted in male, forensic samples – often focusing on people in prison. These have then been used to develop general tests of psychopathy that may not be relevant to a general population of men and women who are not criminals.

Traits associated with psychopathy may present differently outside these contexts. In women, for example, these traits may be expressed in more relational ways – through patterns of manipulation, emotional detachment and aggression that is less overt.

Some studies have suggested that women who commit violent crimes tend to score relatively higher on interpersonal and affective traits (closer to Factor 1) than on the overtly antisocial behaviours (captured by Factor 2), compared with male violent offenders. This may help explain why female presentations can be overlooked when assessment tools are heavily skewed towards male behaviour.

A similar pattern has been observed in narcissism research. Early models focused heavily on externally visible traits, such as overt grandiosity, entitlement and assertiveness, which are more commonly associated with men. Only more recently has vulnerable narcissism – defined by low self-esteem, hypersensitivity, and feelings of shame – been recognised as more typical of female expressions of narcissism.

If our understanding of psychopathy is based on a narrow subset of individuals, then it’s likely to miss important variations in how these traits are expressed.

Why this matters

Taken together, these issues help explain why psychopathy can feel both familiar and elusive. The traits often associated with it – emotional detachment, reduced empathy, impulsivity – do exist and appear in real interactions. But they rarely present in the clear, consistent way that diagnostic labels suggest.

Instead, they emerge unevenly, shaped by context, relationships and other aspects of personality. This gap between real life and formal measurement has real-world consequences. In prisons, it can influence decisions about risk, sentencing and rehabilitation. And in the workplace, it may mean that employers miss psychopathic traits in the people they promote – they may appear charming and reliable to those who are senior to them – leading to chaos and suffering among staff.

Rather than asking whether psychopathy exists, a more useful question may be why it has been so difficult to define and measure in a consistent way.

The evidence does seem to suggest that it may be too narrowly framed and too simply measured. A more effective approach may involve treating these traits as existing along a continuum, recognising their variability across people and contexts and combining multiple methods of assessment rather than relying on any single tool. For example, this might include integrating clinical judgement with patterns of behaviour over long periods of time to build a more complete picture of how these traits manifest.

Seen in this light, psychopathy may not be a “zombie idea” after all. Perhaps it is just a concept that we have yet to fully understand. The challenge is not to abandon it, but to refine how we study it – and how we interpret what we find.

---

For you: more from our Insights series:

• Sweeteners and the quest for the perfect alternative to sugar

• What it would have been like to experience the dinosaur‑killing asteroid armageddon: a blow‑by‑blow account

• ‘It ain’t no unicorn’: meet the researchers who’ve interviewed 130 Bigfoot hunters

• The truth about child IQ: research shows it fluctuates and may be an unreliable predictor of future success

• The grief myth: it doesn’t come in stages or follow a checklist – like love, it endures

• Is time a fundamental part of reality? A quiet revolution in physics suggests not

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Ava Green does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

When disappointment strikes, is your instinct to try to shake it off, forget about it and move on? My research and experience of many workplaces suggests this might be exactly the wrong response.

My interest in the science of disappointment began more than 15 years ago as a workplace consultant. I was struck by how often clients described episodes that left them feeling disappointed as deeply personal and unsettling experiences – and by how little research there was to help me respond meaningfully. That prompted me to do a PhD on the subject.

Disappointment often reflects a gap between expectation and reality. It can involve grieving a future we had already begun to live in our minds.

My subsequent research with colleagues revealed a telling pattern. In the workplace, disappointment is frequently generated at a systemic level by unrealistic targets – yet lands on individuals as a sense of personal failure.

In many walks of life, it is commonly dismissed as an unwanted and unhelpful emotion. But our research tells a different story. Disappointment can be an important fuel for creativity. It surfaces what we truly desire, clarifies what matters to us, and points us toward what we are not yet willing to accept.

Whether in our professional or personal lives, disappointment is a signal worth learning to read. Here are some ideas for when you next come up against it.

1. Don’t get ahead of yourself

When we are waiting on a significant decision – a job offer, test result or relationship turning point – our emotional response is prepared long before the answer arrives. The same outcome can feel entirely different depending on what we anticipated would happen. The wider the gap between expectation and reality, the greater the disappointment.

In the workplace, severe disappointment in not getting a job or missing out on a promotion can stem from the loss of a working future we had already begun to imagine. If that future does not materialise, we grieve it – even if it never fully existed.

2. Beware the success trap

Success can quietly raise the bar for future failure. One of our respondents illustrated this dynamic neatly. Exceed your work target by 10% one year, they observed, and your manager is unlikely to reward you with a lighter load the next. Rather, the target is raised again, making falling short more likely – and the disappointment more acute because of your past success.

The same pattern can play out in social situations. Think of a friend who often picks up the bill. Over time, a generous gesture becomes expected behaviour. Then, on the one occasion they don’t pay, this becomes a moment of disappointment that people notice and remember. That disappointment is not proportionate to what actually happened, but to the gap with what was expected.

3. Try not to blame yourself (or anyone else)

People rarely experience disappointment in a neutral way. Rather, they tend to interpret it through one of two familiar patterns.

The first is internal: “I am the problem.” This assumes they did not try hard enough or were simply not good enough. Disappointment is treated as a sign they are a flawed or bad person.

The second interpretation is external. The fault is with others who did not recognise the person’s value and did not live up to expectations. The instinct is to blame and get angry with them.

Our research on disappointment in organisations shows both responses miss the point. Blaming ourselves or others can be a way of avoiding something harder to confront: that expectations are unrealistic or based on inaccurate assumptions.

4. The Ikea effect

Environments shape expectations. In workplaces, many people are encouraged to aim high and improve continuously. Organisations often promote ideals of progress, achievement and fulfilment.

These ideals can be motivating, but they can also create a perfect scenario that reality struggles to match. From this perspective, disappointment can be a structural feature of systems that rely on high expectations and idealised outcomes.

But there’s a personal aspect too. Research on what psychologists call “the Ikea effect” shows the more effort we invest in something, the more we value it – rather like a flatpack piece of furniture that we have built ourselves. At work, we routinely pour time, energy and identity into projects, roles and relationships. So, when things don’t go as hoped, we are losing something very personal.

And because failure at work is often witnessed by colleagues and managers, the stakes feel higher. The loss can become entangled with how others see us, and how we see ourselves.

Left unexamined, such feelings can calcify into something more damaging than the original disappointment: a diminished appetite for risk, a reluctance to invest fully in what comes next, and a growing suspicion that doing so is simply not worth it.

5. Be realistic, not idealistic

Moving from trying to eliminate disappointment to tolerating it can make it less destabilising and more informative. As a manager, this might mean developing the habit of noting, at the outset of a project, what a realistic rather than an ideal result would look like.

Similar patterns can appear in relationships too, where expecting things to feel perfect all the time can make an otherwise good relationship seem lacking.

Research consistently shows that naming difficult emotions reduces their intensity, and that workplaces where disappointment can be discussed honestly tend to be psychologically safer, more creative and better at learning from setbacks than those where such feelings are expected to be quietly moved past.

6. Accept disappointment, don’t dismiss it

Disappointment is uncomfortable because it confronts us with limits: to what we can control, to what organisations can deliver, or to what relationships can provide. An understandable instinct is to try to move past this quickly.

But a more constructive approach is to reflect on where our expectations come from, how they are formed, and whether they can be moderated in ways that benefit us. If disappointment is a signal that our expectations and reality are out of alignment, then understanding this may be one of the most important forms of resilience we can develop.

Annette Clancy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

What happens when a leader suddenly disappears? In politics, business and other human organisations, leadership transitions can trigger intense power struggles. Rivals compete for control, alliances shift and institutions can become unstable.

Similar dynamics occur throughout the animal kingdom. Our new research on tropical paper wasps, published in the journal Animal Behaviour, shows just how chaotic leadership struggles can be – but also how societies can remain stable even while conflict rages.

Many animal societies revolve around a single dominant breeder. In cooperative paper wasps, as in many other social wasp species, dozens or even hundreds of females live together in a colony. But reproduction is usually controlled by one dominant individual: the queen. The other females help raise her offspring by foraging for food, feeding larvae and defending the nest.

Unlike in honeybee, yellowjacket wasp or ant colonies, however, these helpers are not sterile. If the queen disappears, any of them could potentially take over and become the next breeder. Often there is a queue – ladies-in-waiting, hoping to be queen. But succession isn’t always predetermined, and in some cases, it can become a contest.

How is the contest settled?

It was in a derelict building in Panama that we found the answer to this question. We experimentally removed queens from 19 wild colonies of the tropical paper wasp, Polistes canadensis, and watched to see what happened next.

The effects were immediate. Aggressive interactions between females increased sharply as several of them competed for dominance. The colony’s usual patterns of behaviour broke down and its dominance hierarchies rapidly became unstable. Rather than a smooth transfer of power, succession turned into a period of widespread conflict involving many members of the colony.

At first glance, this kind of turmoil looks risky. Fighting takes time and energy, and wasps distracted by conflict might neglect essential tasks such as foraging for prey, feeding larvae and maintaining nest structure and hygiene. Violent fights over leadership have been reported in other paper wasps, resulting in societal collapse.

But that wasn’t what we observed.

Despite the chaos, the colonies continued functioning. While some wasps fought to be queen, others avoided the conflict and instead stepped up their investment in foraging and brood care. They ignored the conflict and kept the colony running.

Cooperation didn’t disappear – it was redistributed.

One surprising finding was that the peaceful wasps didn’t appear biologically different from the fighters. In many animal societies, traits such as body size, age or position in the hierarchy help predict who will compete for leadership. For example, in meerkats the largest and oldest females are most likely to inherit the dominant breeding role. In naked mole rats, females already high in the hierarchy fight hardest when the queen dies.

---

Read more: Of mice and matriarchs: the female-led societies of the animal kingdom

---

But in our wasp colonies we found no clear differences in body size, age or previous status between individuals that fought and those that stepped back.

This suggests the behaviour may reflect strategic decisions rather than fixed roles. Some wasps may judge that competing for dominance offers them a good chance of producing their own young, while others may gain more by assuring the survival of the brood, which are typically the wasps’ siblings. Investing in the survival of your close relatives is an alternative reproductive strategy and explains the evolution of helping behaviour in animal societies.

Cooperation during conflict

Social insects are often portrayed as perfectly organised societies with rigid rules. Honeybee and ant colonies, for example, typically have sterile workers, leaving little competition over who becomes the next queen. But paper wasps are different. Workers retain the ability to reproduce, and in the tropical species we studied there appears to be no “next in line” when the queen disappears.

Aggression-driven succession might seem too costly for a society to tolerate. Yet our results show it can work, so long as some animals compensate for the disruption by maintaining essential tasks. Even during intense leadership battles, cooperation can persist if some members adjust their behaviour to keep the system functioning.

The balance the wasps in our study maintained may be a common feature of social systems more broadly. When power struggles intensify, stability depends upon those who keep crucial work going in the background.

It’s easy to get distracted when political rivals are fighting it out, but, perhaps we should be shining a light on the unsung heroes who quietly keep things ticking over.

Seirian Sumner receives funding from UK government's Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). She is a Trustee and Fellow of the Royal Entomological Society, and author of the book 'Endless Forms: Why We Should Love Wasps'.

Owen Corbett receives funding from the UK government's Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

You unlock your phone with your face, your fingerprint sends your laptop whirring into action, you pass airport security by glancing at a camera. Biometric technology has become so woven into the daily routine that for many people, it barely registers any more.

That invisibility is part of the point. These systems are usually fast, convenient and feel secure. Unlike a password, you can’t forget your face. But that doesn’t mean they are without risk.

Biometrics fall into two broad families: physiological (fingerprints, faces, irises, even nailbed patterns) and behavioural (how you walk or type, the rhythm of your speech, the angle you hold your phone).

Both forms are already being widely used – you just may not realise it. Many banks and retailers now monitor how you interact with your device – from swipes, taps and scrolls to the angle you hold your phone, the rhythm of how you move between fields, and the pressure of your touch. If someone else picks up your unlocked phone and tries to access your banking app, this can automatically trigger a fraud alert.

My research with colleagues even shows it’s possible to infer a user’s name and native language from the timing patterns of their keystrokes.

The graphic below shows the full extent of biometric technologies. Those marked dark green are in widespread commercial and government use today – including less-familiar examples such as the veins in your hand and other bodily vein patterns.

Physiological and behavioural biometric systems:

Gait analysis – reading how you walk – is already used for security and surveillance purposes, from venue access to detecting potentially suspicious behaviour. You can wear a mask, pull up a hood, avoid looking at a camera – but you can’t easily change how you walk.

China’s authorities have been using this technology for nearly a decade. And in 2023, the UK’s Biometrics and Forensic Ethics Group flagged gait recognition for ethical guidance. This is usually a sign that operational use isn’t far behind.

A number of other biometric technologies (marked light green), ranging from skin texture and ear shape to micro-expressions and hand-grip patterns, are being actively researched for use in the near future. A further group (marked red) have so far only been demonstrated in the laboratory. But even body odour and breath signatures are further along than their novelty might suggest.

What once felt like science fiction is now embedded in our everyday lives. You can’t always see this technology, and you can’t always opt out. But knowing it exists is the first step to understanding how much of yourself you’re already sharing.

V is for vulnerability

In April 2026, financial security expert Li Chang showed Chinese TV viewers how AI tools could extract a celebrity’s fingerprints from a single selfie. The culprit? The classic V-sign, finger pads pointed straight at the lens.

This built on work by Japan’s National Institute of Informatics which in 2017 showed that usable fingerprints could be lifted from photos taken up to three metres away. And phone camera technology has only got better since then.

In the UK, police have made at least two arrests based on fingerprints lifted from photos: one from a WhatsApp image of a hand holding ecstasy pills, the other when a drug dealer was identified from a photo of him holding a block of Stilton cheese.

This technology can work in the other direction too. In the Chinese city of Hangzhou in July 2025, criminals reportedly tried to unlock a smart door using a photo the homeowner had posted online with his fingers visible. The attempt failed but the intent was clear.

While this kind of targeted, technically demanding attack is still unusual, there are some precautions I would advise taking as the use of biometric technology grows.

How to protect yourself

First, be selective about when you agree to share biometric data – fingerprints, face, iris, voice, all of it.

Most modern smartphones store biometric templates in a secure chip that never leaves the device. But third-party apps and workplace systems rarely offer the same guarantee.

In July 2024, US tech giant Meta paid the state of Texas US$1.4 billion (£1.1bn) after running facial recognition on users without consent. This followed a class-action settlement with TikTok’s parent company ByteDance in Illinois for US$92 million over similar allegations.

So, try to keep track of which apps have access to your camera and microphone. On both iOS and Android, this takes about two minutes. And don’t use biometrics as the only layer of security – make sure there’s a second step.

Three potential biometric weakpoints

Voice: This is probably the most casually surrendered biometric. AI voice cloning requires only seconds of audio to produce a convincing replica, and it’s being used in fraud calls impersonating family members. This is a far more realistic – and terrifying – version of the virtual kidnapping scam that’s been around for years. Establishing a safe word with the people closest to you for any unexpected financial request is a simple and underrated defence.

Eyes: Iris recognition is considered robust because this coloured eye muscle has around 250 measurable features – far more than a fingerprint – and remains stable throughout your life. But the quiet expansion of eye-tracking data collected through VR headsets, for example, is going unnoticed. Check the privacy settings on any VR device you use, and be aware that gaze data is increasingly treated as a commercial asset by platforms that collect it.

Fingerprints: Beyond being careful what you point at the camera, know where you’ve enrolled your fingerprint. Workplace access systems and payment terminals vary widely in how they store and protect data – and unlike your phone, they’re not legally required to tell you.

None of this means biometric systems are broken. For most purposes, they are more secure than the passwords they are replacing. The question is not whether to engage with these systems – they’re already too embedded to avoid. It’s whether we’re engaging with our eyes open – eyes that are, of course, already regularly being scanned.

Oli Buckley receives funding from UKRI (including EPSRC and ESRC).

Each of us tells a story about who we are, often tracing our identity back through an imagined line of ancestors. Though identity is fundamentally cultural, we tend to anchor it in biology – in the idea of a stable genetic inheritance passed down through generations.

Population genomics has exposed a history far more complex, dynamic and intertwined than we might wish to imagine. Even in a place such as Britain, long imagined as an island of deep and uninterrupted heritage, genetic data suggest a history marked by intense migration, mixture and cultural reinvention.

Two new studies have reinforced this picture, by analysing DNA from the skeletal remains of British individuals who lived during Roman and medieval times.

Prehistoric Britain witnessed periodic major migrations interspersed with smaller and more regular movements of peoples across what was then a contiguous landscape.

After about 6100BC, rising sea levels isolated Britain from mainland Europe, helping to promote later historical narratives of a population relatively isolated.

Yet even early observers recognised otherwise. Writing in the first century AD, the Roman historian Tacitus noted the diversity of Britain’s tribes, suggesting their origins lay in Germany, Gaul and Iberia.

Such conclusions were drawn from physical, cultural and linguistic observations. Now it is testable, thanks to rapid advances in population genomics and ancient DNA sequencing, allowing direct ancestry reconstruction across demographic and political changes.

A major recent study by Marina Silva, from the Francis Crick Institute in London, and colleagues analysed more than 1,000 ancient genomes from across Britain during the first millennium AD.

The pre-print, which has not yet been published in a journal, asks one simple question: could the main historical events of Britain – the Roman occupation, Anglo-Saxon migration, the Viking Age and the Norman conquest – be detected in the genetic data of the populations that lived through these eras?

The answer was complicated. The Roman period, for all its political and cultural upheaval, left surprisingly little mark on the genetic structure of the wider population. About 80% of the individuals who lived during Roman times in Britain cluster almost exactly with those of the immediately preceding Iron Age, arguing for genetic continuity and no replacement. Even in urban centres where occupying Roman elites were most prevalent, the broader population retained overwhelmingly local ancestry.

In contrast, the early medieval period, from around 410AD (when Roman rule collapsed) to 1066AD, saw a substantial influx of new ancestry from across the North Sea. The researchers were able to detect this influx by comparing the British samples with genetic data from populations in other parts of north-west Europe. Continental ancestry associated with Anglo-Saxon migration appears in more than 70% of of the burials in southern “Anglo-Saxon” Britain.

Thus, migration was not just cultural but demographic on a scale sufficient to leave its imprint on the shape of population structure.

Yet even this transformation cannot be generalised. From about 700AD to 1000AD, further waves of continental influence appear in Britain, with the arrival of settlers from central Europe (seemingly from France and the Rhineland) and, to a lesser extent, the south of Europe. However, the Viking Age leaves a more uneven and regionally variable genetic signal than its historical prominence might suggest.

While a Scandinavian component is clearly present in northern and eastern regions, it is rarely of a magnitude comparable to that found in early medieval migrations. Most surprisingly, the Norman conquest of 1066 appears to have been largely an elite process, leaving little detectable trace in the genomes of the common population.

Genome-wide ancestry profiles straddle the date of the conquest, with no hint of abrupt population replacement. Despite all its drama, the conquest seems, at the level of population genetics, to have involved elite replacement by relatively few individuals.

A second pre-print study provides a closer view of what this looked like on the ground. Focusing on a rural cemetery at Priory Orchard in Surrey, Flavio De Angelis, from Arizona State University in Tempe, and colleagues examined individuals buried across the centuries before and after the Norman conquest.

Again, the results are surprising: rather than any clear genetic break after 1066, both pre- and post-conquest burials fall within the same cluster, showing shared ancestry and no evidence for demographic turnover. The continuity is not just qualitative, but visible in the statistical similarity of ancestry components across generations.

Instead, the community reflects a much longer history of interaction across the North Sea world. Its ancestry includes Anglo-Saxon-associated components, significant Scandinavian input dating to the Viking period, and smaller continental contributions.

Crucially, these elements are already present before the Norman arrival and persist afterward. The Norman conquest, in genetic terms, is barely visible. What looks, on historical timelines, like a moment of dramatic rupture appears, at the level of the common individual, as a continuation. Genes tell the story of populations and detect localised impacts of migration, but they do not map neatly onto geopolitics.

Taken together, these studies point to a crucial distinction. Cultural and political change does not necessarily equate to demographic change. Britain’s history is neither one of uninterrupted continuity nor of repeated population replacement, but something more complex: long-term mixture punctuated by events that reshape institutions more than populations.

Some migrations – such as those of the early medieval period – left deep and measurable genetic legacies. Others, despite their prominence in historical narratives, left only faint traces. The discrepancy is striking: the scale of genetic change does not map neatly onto the scale of historical attention.

Modern genetic data reinforce this picture. Contemporary populations across the British Isles do not form a single, uniform group. Instead, they cluster into overlapping but distinct lineages reflecting different regional histories and varying degrees of past migration.

These patterns echo the ancient record, but they did not affect all regions equally. Wales and Ireland retain stronger continuity with earlier populations, while England shows clearer evidence of ancestry linked to early medieval migration from northern Europe. Scotland occupies an intermediate position, reflecting both long-term continuity and later Scandinavian influence.

Importantly, these differences are matters of degree, not kind. All populations of the British Isles share deep common ancestry overlaid by layers of migration whose effects vary regionally. The structure we see today is the product of these layered histories, not the survival of isolated or “pure” populations.

What emerges is not a story of rooted, bounded identities, but of continual connection. British identity – like all identities – has been assembled over millennia through movement, interaction and adaptation.

Modern genomes do not simply tell us who we are; they preserve how we got here. History does not make migration exceptional – it reveals it as the norm.

Jay Silverstein does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

There is not yet much research on the effects of heatwaves on bees. What little there is focuses on super extremes of weather that would kill an adult bee.

However, my new research with colleagues shows that UK populations of solitary bees may be much more sensitive than previously thought to the kinds of extreme weather we are now seeing regularly.

To find out what happens to bees during hot weather, my team recreated the three-day UK heatwave of July 2022. We subjected a group of developing larvae of red mason bees to three days where temperatures peaked daily at 40°C.

Red mason bees are common solitary bees found in UK gardens, and are important pollinators of apples and other fruits. At the same time, a control group experienced normal July temperatures for Hull, where the study was conducted, peaking daily at about 25°C.

After that, we treated both groups identically and allowed them to spin their cocoons and hibernate as normal. Nine months later, all the bees emerged fine, so it appeared initially that the heatwave had had no effect.

But this was before we dissected the bees to look at their reproductive health.

Staggeringly, in males from the heatwave group, sperm activity had dropped by half compared with the control group, and sperm counts by one third. In females, there was a 15% reduction in both the size and the number of developing eggs.

The heatwave had wrecked their fertility, especially in males.

Reduction of sperm motility in bees during heatwave

These numbers are shocking because they suggest solitary bee populations are much more sensitive to weather extremes than we thought, and that this should be factored into calculations of the broader effects of climate change. While bees did not die outright, their fertility was severely affected.

This means that a heatwave one year could lead to a drastic drop in the number of bees the following year, and therefore less efficient pollination for key crops like apples, cherries and oilseed rape.

This would leave commercial fruit growers even more reliant on temporarily renting honeybee hives, commonly called “hire-a-hive” schemes, to combat pollination deficits. This is at a time when research increasingly shows that wild bees, whose services come for free, are better pollinators than honeybees.

What else happens in heatwaves?

In honeybees and bumblebees, living together as a group is the key to withstanding weather extremes. With their social hives, honeybees can flexibly respond to periods of heavy rainfall and strong winds by rapidly reallocating the tasks that worker bees perform – switching from nest maintenance to foraging, for example.

Honeybees and bumblebees are also able to respond to temperature changes. They maintain their nests within strict temperature limits, with some workers switching to becoming living radiators when temperatures drop, buzzing their wing muscles to produce heat that keeps the brood at the ideal growing temperature.

Bumblebee nests begin with a single queen hibernating over winter and then working alone to build up her brood. New research is revealing secrets of their resilience: for example, hibernating bumblebee queens can survive underwater for up to a week when their nest is flooded.

However, honeybees and bumblebees are not most bees.

---

Read more: Queen bumblebees can breathe underwater — for days. We discovered how

---

Unlike honeybees and bumblebees, most bees are solitary, which means they don’t have social nestmates to help them when times get tough – they work entirely on their own. Nests of these solitary bees are at the mercy of the elements, so solitary bees are much more vulnerable to climate change than social bees.

Of course, heatwaves are not the only threats to bees. They have an array of other nightmares to cope with, including pesticides, diseases, nutritional stress and loss of habitat.

The priority now is to investigate how bees affected by heatwaves also cope with these other problems. Our lab heads up a government-funded study looking at how climate change affects the nutritional needs of growing wild bees, and how parent bees respond to these needs.

Excitingly, we are beginning to see patterns indicating that growing bees require different balances of nutrients when they are reared at different temperatures. We are now testing whether bee mothers are sensitive to these requirements, and can adjust the pollen they gather to compensate.

Extreme hot weather is becoming more prevalent, even in cooler countries. These studies show that severe weather, while not necessarily killing bees outright, has the ability to seriously damage the bee population – with long-term consequences for pollination as well as the human food chain.

James Gilbert currently receives funding from UKRI (BBSRC) and the study mentioned in this article, on which James is a coauthor, was funded by UKRI (NERC).

In the first landmark publication of his papacy, Pope Leo XIV has addressed recent advances in artificial intelligence by focusing on the threat it poses to workers, social justice and “the dignity of persons”.

Presenting his first papal encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas” (“Magnificent Humanity”), at the Vatican on May 25, Leo declared: “Artificial intelligence needs to be disarmed.”

In the document – comprising around 42,300 words in its English translation – the pope writes: “To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity.”

Encyclicals are exceptionally important papal documents that respond to the most pressing social issues of the time. Typically written as letters to all bishops and archbishops, they have become a crucial vehicle for disseminating the theology and political commitments of the Roman Catholic Church across the world.

Leo chose to sign his first encyclical on May 15 2026, the exact anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s “Rerum novarum” (“Of new things”). This famous encyclical, which responded to the technological advances of the industrial revolution, became the foundational document of all modern Catholic social teaching.

Indeed, the current pope probably chose the name Leo because of Leo XIII’s renowned commitment to social justice.

Just as “Rerum novarum” responded to the industrial revolution by emphasising workers’ rights and the dignity of human labour, so too Leo XIV has responded to the explosion of AI technology by emphasising the importance of human over machine intelligence.

In 1891, Leo XIII wrote: “Wage-earners … should be specially cared for and protected by the government.”

Leo XIV now makes similar appeals to world governments about AI: “It is necessary to establish adequate regulatory tools capable of upholding justice and curbing the distorting effects of technological power.”

The current pope follows a long tradition of Catholic engagement with new tech – from concerns about the impact of the printing press in the 15th century to the rise of the internet over 500 years later.

Leo XIV’s presentation was preceded by a short film which juxtaposed images of previous popes with major technological innovations. Radio towers gave way to images of broadband centres; early computers to a sea of people holding up their smartphones in St Peter’s Square, Vatican City.

Perhaps the crucial theme of this video was the connection between technology and war. Pictures of second world war aircraft were intercut with the dropping of the atomic bomb, soon followed by images of the 9/11 attacks.

In the encyclical, Leo warns: “The growing ease with which autonomous weapons systems can be deployed makes war more ‘feasible’ and less subject to human control.”

Call for disarmament

Leo XIV isn’t the first pope to address the potential threat posed by AI technology. In January 2025, his predecessor Francis signed off the doctrinal note “Antiqua et nova” (“Ancient and new”) – which called for AI technology “to include the least of our brothers and sisters, the vulnerable and those most in need”.

Leo’s new call for the disarmament of AI is not a demand to discontinue its development, but to regulate AI robustly so it only serves the common good.

In this, the pope drew an analogy with the nuclear disarmament movement, suggesting that both nuclear and AI technologies should only be developed for the good of humanity, and never used as weapons.

Those invited to offer their thoughts on Leo’s encyclical included Christopher Olah, the Canadian billionaire and co-founder of AI firm Anthropic. The appearance of Olah marks the first time a speaker entirely outside clerical or theological circles has been included in such a presentation.

Anthropic is currently locked in a legal dispute with the US government regarding the military application of its AI systems. Leo’s encyclical underlines his concerns about the escalation of war around the world, stating: “It is important to reaffirm that the ‘just war’ theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated.”

Olah echoed Leo’s demands for greater social justice around the use of AI, stating: “His Holiness’s call for disarmament is profoundly timely.”

He called for people working outside computer science to contribute to AI governance and ethics – people “beyond the incentives” of financial markets “who can see what we, from the inside, cannot”.

Leo answered Olah by saying: “In the name of the Church, I accept your invitation to walk together, to listen and to speak – and together, to find the way for humanity in this time of artificial intelligence.”

James Lorenz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.